Skip to main content

Full text of "Works"

See other formats 


ΒΕ. 
i 


eel oe 


ΡΟ ΜΟῚ 
πεν; ἘΝ nt ns ar atte Sk 
Te ΩΣ ᾿ at 
5 Tare tents tem tela tates, Lak ee ΎΣ 
Stet gs ee CUR REN Rare ee etre 
SP eTe Merete Sergey wel ων 
ΩΦ 


πὴ Ἢ εἰν νὰν 
ed 3 - ure enemy nt 

pi Ste i Se Sew 

Side be bots 

SRE em eer" fore > te 


ne ee a 
ἣν ΣΦ std Dt Sed 
Σιν aot Ὡς 


9 ee ie 
a 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/workscosO4cosiuoft 




















THE, 


yO KS 


OF THE 


RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, 


Te Hy N> νυ Ν, 


LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM. 


NOW FIRST COLLECTED. 


...--...-.--.- 


VOLUME THE FOURTH. 


MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. 


OXFORD: 
JOHN HENRY PARKER. 


M DCCC LI. 





OXFORD: 
PRINTED BY I, SHRIMPTON. 





EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


> 


THis volume contains, besides the History of Transub- 
stantiation, a collection of letters and papers, of more or less 
theological interest, several of which are now published for 
the first time. 

It may not be undesirable here to give a brief account of 
the preservation and collection of these works, of the little 
that is known of their several histories, and of the occasions 
on which they were written. 

I. The History of Transubstantiation was origmally com- 
posed in the year 1656, i. e. nineteen years before its first 
publication in 1675, when Cosin was residing at Paris du- 
ring the troubles of the Rebellion. Dr. Durel’s preface to the 
work, as published, contains some interesting particulars of 
its history, which are confirmed and explained by the letter 
of Gilbert. Talbot to Cosin, requesting him to write on the 
subject, and Cosin’s reply. These letters are now first 
printed, pp. 6, 7, from Bp. Cosin’s MSS. at Durham: and 
from them it appears that the work originated in the at- 
tempts of Jesuits, and others of the Roman communion, to 
make proselytes among the loyalists who attended Charles 
II. in his court abroad, and particularly to subvert the king 
himself. 

At first the treatise was circulated only in MS. Two of 
these MS. copies have been found, and collated with the 
printed text. One of these is preserved at Chester, in the 
chapter library, having on it some marginal notes and cor- 
rections by another hand in red chalk. Another copy is now 
a2 





1v PREFACE. 


deposited in Bishop Cosin’s library at Durham: it was in the 
possession of Dr. Van Mildert, and was afterwards presented 
by the present Bishop of Durham to the library of the Uni- 
versity. This copy contains notes and suggested alterations 
in red chalk, like the Chester MS., apparently made by some 
friend: several of these have been noticed in this edition, as 
written “rubricd in MS. Dunelm.” They exhibit the view 
taken by another mind than the writer’s, and also shew that 
Bp. Cosin, having these suggestions made, did not, at least 
in many instances, adopt them: see particularly pp. 15, 17. 
The writing is so difficult to identify, from the cursory way 
in which the chalk marks are made, that the editor cannot 
venture any opinion as to the person whose hand it is. 
This copy also contains corrections by Cosin, as if for the 
press; but yet differs, in some respects considerably, from 
the work as ultimately printed. The variations have been 
noticed in the present edition, as in several instances they 
indicate, In an interesting way, the modifications of the 
writer’s views, and the care with which a work, originally 
put together in little more than two months, was finally pre- 
pared for publication. See particularly pp. 16, 30, 49, 79, 
105, 127, &c. It may have been this MS., from which 
Basire’s mistake originated, who (Dead Man’s Real Speech?, 
p- 67.) mentions a second part of this history “ unprinted, 
but ready for the press;” which is clearly an error. No 
second part exists: the treatise is complete as published ; 
and it is hardly conceivable that Cosin should, so short a 
time before his death, have given his consent to the pub- 
lication of a part only of his book, if at the same time he 
had a second portion ready for the press. 

At the commencement of the Durham MS. is found a 
rough draught, in Cosin’s own hand, of the following im- 
perfect 


@ [The full title of this work is, ‘‘ The 
Dead Man’s Real Speech; a Funeral 
Sermon, preached on Hebr. xi. 4, upon 
the 29th day of April, 1672; together 
with a brief of the life, dignities, bene- 
factions, principal actions and suffer- 
ings, and of the death of the said Lord 
Bishop of Durham; published (upon 
earnest request) by Isaac Basire, D.D., 


Chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty, 
and Archdeacon of Northumberland ;” 
Lond. 1673. ] 

» [A few months only. (See Durell’s 
preface, pp. 7,8.) Cosin died at his 
house in Pall Mall, Jan. 15, 1672; but 
the History of Transubstantiation was 
not out before 1675. | 


PREFACE, v 


“PROG@MIUM. 


DICENDORUM METHODUS ET SCOPUS. 


Proposirum mihi est in hoc opere, tanquam in viva tabula, delineare 
et quid hoe seculo docetur, et quid ante hoc seculum edoctum fuit, de, 
sacratis symbolis et presentia Christi Domini et Servatoris nostri in Sacra- 
mento Eucharistie, quam in Sui commemorationem morti vicinus insti- 
tuit. Atque equidem haud nullum opere pretium me facturum existi- 
mavi, neque rem ingratam veritatis et antiquitatis studiosis prestiturum, 
si post veterem, veram, et primam de hoc augustissimo Sacramento fidem 
sanctis semel traditam', atque a nobis non minus religiose quam a priscis 1 [S. Jud. 
patribus retentam, novam deinde transubstantiationis doctrinam seculis Y- 3-] 
sequioribus a quibusdam tantum audacis ingenii hominibus introductam, 
et tandem a papa Romana, ejusque in synodo Tridentina asseclis receptam 
et confirmatam, historici magis quam polemica dissertatione ob oculos 
ponerem ; simulque ostenderem hance unam priori seculo scindendi a 
regno papali, si nulle fuissent aliz, ut erant permultz, plusquam satis 
causarum dedisse. Ita enim fore ratus sum, ut et memet ipsum in fide et 
doctrina sane confirmarem, neque nullos, si quibus forte opus esset, erudi- 
rem. I. Exordiar autem primum ab ipsa Sacra Scriptura, quee, cum in 
hoc, tum in alio quoyis articulo totius nostre Fidei, precipuum atque 
adeo unicum fundamentum est : adducam deinde in medium consentientes 
utriusque partis Protestantium confessiones, que ccetus Ecclesize Catholic 
reformatos a non-reformatis discriminant, queeque non alicujus hominis 
privati arbitrio, sed publica omnium voce et auctoritate, de hoe eodem ar- 
gumento conscript sunt. II. Cui consonam per omnia fidem doctrinam- 
que e[confessionibus] utriusque partis, &c.,exhibebo. III. Sejungam post- 
ea oppositam eorum doctrinam, qui a pontificis Romani aulz synodique 
quam dixi Tridentinz decretis pendent. IV. Porro adducam in medium 
veteris Ecclesiz traditionem, que S. Scripturis subnixa ex antiquorum 
patrum genuinis, et que in dubium vocari nequeant scriptis, per mille et 
amplius annos certe [habitis] liquido constare poterit. V. Apponam suc- 
cedentium etatum placita, seu potius quorundam tantum curiosorum et 
scholasticorum inyenta, que tamen, aliis ab aliis dissidentibus, ab universo 
Romane Keclesize corpore nondum in Fidem Christianam recepta et ap- 
probata fuere, donee tandem nove fidei professio, ex ultimi papalis con- 
cilii posteriore seeculo celebrati decretis conflata, a Pio quarto P. R. omni- 
bus ejusdem Ecclesiz asseclis, sub eterne salutis jactura, inaudito prorsus 
exemplo obtrusa et imposita est. VI. Interea vero papa Romanus Eccle- 
siam Universalem non facit, et concilium ejus Trid. paucorum erat Roma- 





γι PREFACE. 


norum, quibus reliqui tum Latinorum tum Grecorum consensum suum 
nequaquam preebuerunt :—id, quod ultimo loco ostensum ibo. 

Ex dicendis autem judicet® zquus et bonus lector (nam hic hujus his- 
torice scriptionis scopus est) utri potius novatores jure meritoque.” ..... 
[Czetera desunt. | 


Another short preface also to this treatise has been met 
with, (Smith’s MSS*. xiii. 20,) which, though its author is 
not named, deserves to be inserted at this place: 


“De Transubstantiationis Papalis Historia, non ita pridem a vere Reve- 
rendo Presule, D.D. Joh. Cosino, Episcopo Dunelmensi, Latine con- 
scripta. 


----᾿᾽  . 


Huc et animum prejudicio vacuum, et pugillares tecum, lector erudite, 
adfer ; ut verum a falso clarius dignosces, reponasque in usum scitu dig- 
nissima. Hic enim inyenies, que admirére simul et intelligas ; etiam que 
nec intellecta tutissime credas :—maguum scilicet illud 5.5. Eucharistie 
mysterium, ab omni symbolorum asystasi solide vindicatum : ab insanis, 
et, tam ipsis Divini oraculi effatis, quam rationis sensuumque nostrorum 
criteriis, palam repugnantibus, Transubstantiatorum figmentis plane re - 
purgatum ; primeve simplicitati sue ex integro restitutum ; eoque tan- 
dem saniori etiam philosophie placide reconciliatum. Adhuc magis: ip- 
sum invenies p. m. auctorem judicium tuum ex atra errorum caligine, in 
clarissimam salutiferee lucem veritatis, docte, candide, pie manuducen- 
tem ; imo, trahentem: idque per Verbi Domini genuina interpretamenta, 
per fidissima venerande antiquitatis monumenta, per ubique consona pa- 
trum suffragia, per incorrupte nobis traditam §8.S. Ecclesiw Catholice Fi- 
dem, per unanimas reformatorum confessiones, per ipsorum denique sen- 
suum testimonia indubitanda. Sequere igitur; et Christianismo, refor- 
matis, Ecclesiz Anglicane, patrix, tibimet ipsi, de tanto ]umine, ubi par 
est, congratulare. 


October 8, 1674,” 


II. Luke de Beaulieu’s translation of the History of Tran- 
substantiation having been published, apparently with some 
degree of authority, in 1676, the year after the publication 


¢ [Some interlineations occur at this several others. At Smith’s death they 


place, but they are illegible. ] 

4 These MSS. so often referred to 
in the course of this volume, were col- 
lected by Dr. Thomas Smith, author of 
the “‘ Vite quorundam Eruditissimorum 
Virorum,” containing biographical ac- 


counts of Abp. Ushur, Bp. Cosin, and 


fell into the hands of Tho. Hearne, and 
are now in the Bodleian Library. The 
transcripts of several of Bishop Cosin’s 
papers, found among these MSS., were 
obtained by Dr. Thomas Smith, through 
Dr. John Smith, sometime prebendary 
of Durham, 


᾿ 


PREFACE. vil 


of the original Latin, it has been deemed advisable to reprint 
it here in smaller type. 

III. The papers which next follow are on the Validity of 
the Ordination of Priests in the Church of England, and 
have not before been printed. They comprise, 1. A portion 
of a letter addressed by Cosin to Dr. Morley, preserved 
among the Barlow MSS. in the lbrary of Queen’s College, 
Oxford, (cexix. 9, fol. 189.) in which Cosin gives a particular 
account of his controversy with Father Robinson, Prior of 
the English Benedictines at Paris, who, in an attempt to 
draw over to the Church of Rome an English lady of Queen 
Henrietta Maria’s court, then held in Paris, had been urging 
objections against the form of our English ordinations ; and, 
2. A series of Cosin’s letters and papers, written in the 
course of this controversy, in review of the Prior’s objections, 
of which copies have been preserved among the Smith MSS. 
in the Bodleian Library, and some in Cosin’s own hand 
among the Barlow MSS. (ubi supr.) at Queen’s College. 
It would appear from a letter still extant, (see p. 242, note 
b,) that Cosin had himself some thoughts of preparing these 
papers for the press. The controversy with F. Robinson 
took place shortly after Cosin’s arrival in France, in the 
summer of 1645. 

IV. The next paper treats of the question of Communion 
in one kind only. It purports to be Cosin’s answer to a 
letter sent by a Romanist to a lady of the English commu- 
nion, and is now printed for the first time from the Smith 
MSS. 

V. Cosin’s Letter to the Countess of Peterborough, on the 
points of agreement and difference between the Churches of 
England and Rome, is well known. It was first published in 
the Appendix to the Controversial Letters between Dr. Hickes 
and a Popish Priest, Paper iv., and has been usually reprinted 
at the end of Bishop Bull’s treatise on the Corruptions of the 
Church of Rome. 

VI. The State of us who adhere to the Church of Eng- 
land, is a short paper on the same subject as the preceding, 
originally published at the end of Basire’s Dead Man’s Real 
Speech. 

VII. The Regni Angliz Religio Catholica is a treatise of 


π᾿ 


vill PREFACE. 


the more interest, as having been written at the request of 
Hyde, about the year 1652, to give foreign Christians a just 
view of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of Eng- 
land, as constituted by authority. It was first published 
with Cosin’s life in the Vitge of Dr. Thomas Smith, who in 
his preface gives some particulars respecting the MS. from 
which he printed, and which appears to have been the iden- 
tical transcript which Clarendon had received from Cosin. 
In the year 1729 another edition of the Religio was sent out, 
by William Wekett, from an original MS. then at Durham. 
Into the body of the treatise, in this edition, the Politeta of 
Dr. Richard Cosin, Dean of Arches, temp. Elizabeth, was 
inserted, in a slightly enlarged and corrected form: but how 
far it was ever intended by Cosin himself to incorporate 
these tables, which had been already long before published 
by their author, into a treatise of his own, must, at the 
least, be considered very doubtful. It has, accordingly, been 
thought best to print the treatise from the text of Smith; 
taking notice, however, of the various readings of Wekett’s 
edition, and also of a MS., corrected in minute, generally 
grammatical, points by Bishop Barlow, now preserved with 
his MSS. at Queen’s College, (ccxix. 22, p. 408.) There is 
also a MS. copy of the treatise among Dr. Smith’s MSS. m 
the Bodleian Library, corresponding with the text as printed 
by him. 

VIII. The next paper is one of greater interest than 
length, giving the details of a discussion, in which Cosin 
had found himself engaged, touching the supremacy and 
head of the Church. His views on this subject, it seems, 
had been misrepresented, as though he entertained opinions 
inconsistent with due deference to his sovereign. The paper 
is now first printed from a copy among the Harleian MSS. 
in the Brit. Mus. 

IX. The correspondence between Lord Clarendon, then Sir 
Edward Hyde, and Cosin, on the collation of Bishops, written 
in the year 1655, relates to the plans then agitated among 
the loyal members of the English Church, during the 


© See the Vite quorundam eruditis- Doctore et Ecclesie Anglicane Pres- 
simorum et illustrium virorum, &e., bytero, Lond. 1707, in vit. Joan. Co- 
scriptore —Thoma Smitho, S. Theol. — sini, p. 31, et seq. 


PREFACE. ix 


exile of Charles II., for fillmg up the vacant sees in Eng- 
land, lest the episcopal succession should be ultimately lost 
to the Church of England through the deaths of all its 
Bishops. The letters, together with the form of collation, 
have been printed from the Appendix to the Clarendon State 
Papers. 

X. The Articles of Inquiry exhibited to the ninth pre- 
bendary (Sancroft) in the year 1668, together with the In- 
junctions to the Dean and Chapter of Durham, which follow 
them, are now first printed from the Tanner MSS. in the 
Bodleian Library. 

XI. The three Queries proposed by the Bp. of Durham 
to the clergy of his diocese, respecting the abrogation of the 
penal laws, are printed from the Smith MSS. 

XII. The two letters which next follow are addressed to 
Dr. Richard Watson, and were originally published with his 
Deduction. They relate chiefly to the question, whether or 
not it was absolutely unlawful for members of the English 
Church to communicate with the foreign Protestants during 
their almost compulsory residence abroad. There is a para- 
graph, in the second letter, expressive of Cosin’s opinion on 
the questionable authority of the metrical Psalms, which oc- 
casioned their publication by Watson. 

XIII. Cosin’s answer to a charge made against him by 
Fuller was originally published in the Appendix to Heylin’s 
Examen. It is a document of much historical interest. 

XIV. The letter to Cordel, about communicating with the 
French Calvinists, was first published by Bp. Fleetwood 
amongst his Tracts on Lay-Baptism. There is a transcript 
of it among the Smith MSS., and another MS. copy in the 
Bodleian Library superscribed in Lord Clarendon’s hand- 
writing, also a third preserved among the Barlow MSS. 
(cclxxx. 18, fol. 141,) which have been collated with the 
printed text. 

XV. Four letters from Cosin to Gunning, preceded by a 
portion of a letter from Gunning to Cosin, follow. The first 
three of Cosin’s letters are valuable as relating to the Scholas- 
tical History of the Canon of Holy Scripture, which work 
Cosin appears to have undertaken in consequence of a sugges- 
tion of Gunning’s. These letters supply a sort of appendix 


| 


Χ PREFACE. 


to the work on the Canon: they contain an answer to objec- 
tions made by Gunning in a letter addressed by him to 
Cosin. A copy of the first part, and apparently almost the 
whole, of the letter is preserved in Bp. Barlow’s collection 
of MSS. in Queen’s College, (ccxvui. 9, f 329.) It is 
now printed, as a necessary introduction to the replies 
which follow. Cosin’s fourth letter to Gunning is on an- 
other subject, viz. in vindication, or rather in qualification, 
of his views on the validity of presbyterian ordination, as 
expressed in a letter written some time previously, appa- 
rently that to Mr. Cordel, to some expressions in which 
Gunning and others had taken exception. These four let- 
ters of Cosin’s were found in the Baker collection of MSS. 
in the Brit. Mus. 

XVI. The next letter is addressed to Dr. Collins, on the 
Sabbath. It relates to a controversy, of which the reader 
may find a tolerably full account in Bishop Francis White’s 
treatise on the Sabbath Day. This letter was first printed 
in 1723, in the Bibliotheca Literaria. There is a copy of it 
in MS. in the Smith collection, which has been collated with 
the copy as printed'. 

XVII. The letter to Mr. Wood, on the subject of fasting on 
Sundays, was discovered in a volume of MS. letters, &c., in 
Bp.-Cosin’s library at Durham. 

XVIII. The letter to Hyde, on the subject of the Duchess 
of Richmond’s illness, &c., is reprinted from the third volume 
of the Clarendon State Papers. 

XIX. Cosin’s account of his conference with the Arch- 
bishop of Trapezond was printed at the end of Nichols’s ad- 
ditional notes on the book of Common Prayer. The original 
paper was bound up in one of Cosin’s interleaved Prayer- 
books at Durham, and so printed, with the notes contained 
there, by Nichols. It has been collated with the printed 
text for this edition. 

XX. The curious account of the conference between Spa- 


‘ After this volume had passed the knowledge of the editor. It is pro- 


through the press, another MS. work of 
Cosin’s on the Lord’s Day, entitled 
“Determinatio habita Cantabrigiis in 
magnis Comitiis, A.D. 1640. Dies 
Dominicus est immutabilis,” came to 


posed to print it in an appendix to the 
next volume of his works; which will 
contain his Notes on the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. 


PREFACE, xl 


Jato and Overall was published in Gutch’s Collectanea Curi- 
osa, out of which it is now reprinted. The editor has not 
found the MS. used by Mr. Gutch. 

XXI. The letter to Morton, Cosin’s predecessor in the see 
of Durham, in connection with the Memorial which follows 
it, is a document of great interest. In it Cosin gives an 
account of his employment whilst im exile, and in particular 
of his controversies in defence of the Church of England with 
the Sorbonists, Oratorians, Jesuits, and others. The pri- 
mary object, however, of this letter was to request the assist- 
ance of Bishop Morton in procuring transcripts of passages 
out of Cochleus’s epistle, as published before the fourth 
council of Lateran in the first edition of Crabb’s Concilia, 
and alleged by Morton himself in his Catholike Appeale for 
Protestants, and also of a passage out of the Historia Minor 
of Matthew Paris, for whose words Cosin had relied upon the 
authority of Archbishop Parker’s Antiquit. Eccles. Brit., τὰ 
producing them to certain doctors of the Sorbonne in support 
of his arguments against the authority of the so called canons 
of the same fourth council of Lateran. This letter was printed, 
in 1730, in the Present State of the Republic of Letters, having 
been communicated to that publication, together with the fol- 
lowing Memorial, by Des Maizeaux. A MS. of it is found 
among the Birch MSS. in the Brit. Mus., which has been 
collated. 

XXII. The Memorial against the Fourth Council of La- 
teran itself has not been found in MS. by the present editor. 
It is here reprinted from the Present State of the Republic 
of Letters, to which it was sent by Des Maizeaux. 

XXIII. The letter to Blondel relates to the same sub- 
ject as the foregoing memorial and the preceding letter to 
Morton, in connection with which it is accordingly printed. 
It was found among the Cosin MSS. at Durham. 

XXIV. The letter to Casaubon, which next follows, is 
preserved among the Burney MSS. in the Brit. Mus. 

XXV. The next paper is a letter to Grotius, printed 
among the Epistole Ecclesiastice of the Remonstrant Di- 
vines, ed. Amstel. 1684. 

XXVI. Cosin’s Argument on the Dissolution of Marriage 
follows next, in which is contained the substance of the 


ae = 7 


xl PREFACE. 


speeches delivered by him as Bishop of Durham in the House 
of Lords on the bill to enable Lord Rosse to marry again, on 
being divorced from his former wife on the ground of adul- 
tery, A.D. 1669,70. It was originally printed as a pamphlet 
without date or printer’s name; but no doubt can be enter- 
tained of its genumeness, from the kind of learning it ex- 
hibits, and the style of its composition. Cosin was one of 
two bishops who voted for the bill. 

XXVII. The form of prayer to be used during the preva- 
lence of the plague is a fragment found in a volume of MSS. 
at Durham. 

XXVIII. The Articles of Inquiry exhibited at Cosin’s 
first Episcopal Visitation, A.D. 1662, appeared originally as 
a distinct publication, having been printed, the same year in 
which they were exhibited, by T. Garthwait, London. 

XXIX., XXX. The volume closes with Cosin’s Confession 
of his own Faith, which was first printed out of his will by 
Basire, to whom we are also indebted for the translation. 
It was printed afterwards by Dr. Thomas Smith in his Vite. 

Cosin appears to have left behind him several other theo- 
logical fragments and minor pieces, which have as yet escaped 
the researches of the present editor. Among the composi- 
tions of Cosin that are missing, we may regret in particular 
the loss of his Form for the Consecration of Churches, 
Chapels, and Churchyards, prepared for the Convocation of 
1661, and to which reference is made in the second memo- 
randum, placed before the account of the conference between 
Spalato and Overall, at p. 469 of this volume. The only 
remaining papers, beyond those which are here published, 
known still to exist, are such as relate either to transactions 
of private business, or to a few historical and personal in- 
cidents more or less valuable as materials for the future com- 
piler of Cosin’s life. Among the latter may be reckoned 
several letters to Sancroft and others, preserved im the 
Harleian MSS., 2783, &c., &e. 

The letters and papers which have been selected for publi- 
cation in this volume, are such, and such only, as appeared 
to be of theological interest or value. 

It remains for the editor to express his thanks to the au- 
thorities connected with the Chapter and University libraries 


PREFACE. ΧΗ 


at Durham, the Chapter library at Chester, the library at the 
British Museum, and (in Oxford) the Bodleian, and Queen’s 
College libraries, &c. &c.; and also to some private friends: 
from whose kindness he has at the same time received great 
facilities in his search after Cosin’s MSS., with permission to 
make use of them, and much obliging assistance and infor- 
mation in the preparation of his work. 
J. SANsom. 
Oxford, 
July 1, 1851. 





ERRATUM. 


Page 121, note r.—‘‘ Engelb. Archiep. Trevir. apud Goldasti Imper., tom. 
i.”7—Dele [ Nescio, ὅσο: ..... 7 lege [Epist. Engilb. Trevir. contra Hilde- 
brandum Papam, ap. Jo. Georg. Eccardi, Corp. Hist. Medii Avi, tum. ii. col. 
170.—En verus pontifex, et verus sacerdos, qui dubitat si illud quod sumitur 
in Dominica Mens4 sit verum Corpus et Sanguis Christi. Nihil certe ita est 
impium et nefarium, nihil ita est detestabile et execrabile, quod ipse non 


curet, dum alios contra rerem armet, dum alios bellum, quod ipse omnibus 
intendit, excitet. | 


Li 
2. 


CONTENTS. 


Historia Transubstantiationis Papalis 
Luke de Beaulieu’s translation of the History of nivanieafeeed: 


tiation . : 
3. On the validity of the onbnetion of Priests in the Church of 

England. 

a. Letter to Dr. Morley 

b. Form of ordaining Priests in the Chureh of England 

c. Form in the Roman Church 5 5 

ἃ. Occasion of the controversy 

6. First Letter to Prior Robinson : : 2 

f. Second Letter 

g. Second Letter, as re-written, and sent to the Bec upon 


Φ ὦ “1 ὁ) 


10. 


11. 
12. 


13. 


14. 


receipt of his reply to the first letter . 
h. View of F, P.’s Answer to the first paper 


. Letters about communicating in one kind. 


a. Letter from a Roman Catholic to a lady of the English 
Communion : - 
b. Cosin’s Answer to this letter 


. Letter to the Countess of Peterborough concerning agreements 


and differences in the chief points of religion betwixt the 
Church of Rome and the Church of England 


. The State of us who adhere to the Church of England 

. Regni Angliz Religio Catholica, ἕο. : 

. Paper touching the Supremacy, and Head of the Chick 
. Papers concerning the collation of Bishops. 


a. Letter from Hyde to Cosin : . 
b. Cosin’s reply to Hyde 
c. Form of Collation 
Articles and Injunctions. 
a. Articles of Inquiry exhibited to the ninth Prebendary 
Ὁ. Injunctiones et Monita, Xe. 
Queries to the Clergy of the diocese of Durham 
Letters to Dr. Watson. 
a. First Letter ὃ ᾿ 
b. Second Letter 
Answer to Fuller. 
a. Fuller’s charge . 
Ὁ. Cosin’s answer . - : : : 
Letter to Mr. Cordel . : = - ° 





ww bw tw 
Sr ὧι ὧν ϑι ὧι »» 
ὧν τῷ "αὶ 


οε 


τῷ 


τῷ 





XV1 


CONTENTS. 


5. Correspondence with Gunning. 


a. Letter from Gunning to Cosin 
b. Cosin’s first Letter to Gunning 
second Letter 

d. —— third Letter 

fourth Letter 








. Letter to Dr. Collins . : 

- Letterto Mr. Wood . Ξ : - 
. Letter to Hyde - ~ 

. Account of Conference with the ‘Archbishop of Traperaid 
. Account of Conference between Spalato and Overall. 

. Letter to Bishop Morton 3 

. Memorial against the Council of Lateran . 

. Letter to Blondel 

. Letter to Casaubon . . 

. Letter to Grotius 

. Argument on Dissolution of ΠΝ 

. Prayer to be used during the Plague 

. Visitation Articles, A.D. 1662 

. Confession of Faith, in Latin 

30. Basire’s translation of the same . 


HISTORIA 


Tranfubftantiationis 


boca :A 1.1.8: 


Coup 


Premittitur, atque opponitur, 
Tum S. Scripture, tim Veterum Patrum, 


ἃ Reformatarum Ecclefiarum, 
Doctrina CATHOLICA 


DE 
Sacris Symbolis & Preefentia Chrifti in 


Sacramento Euchariftie. 





Hane autem Difquifitionem Hiftoricam anté An- 
nos XIX Scribebat, δ᾽ demum inftanti multorum 
rogatu excudi permifit paulo ante Oblitum, 


JOH. HPISCOPUS DUNELMENSIS. 








LONDINIL 


Typis Tho. Roycroft. Apud Hen. Brome Bibliopo- 
lam, ad infigne Tormenti Bellici, prope Portam 
Occidentalem xdis Sancti Pauli. 


M DCLXXY, 


SERENISSIMO 


POTENTISSIMOQUE 


MONARCHS, 


CAROLO IL. 


SAGN A BRELTAN NE As, 


πὸ ET ALB ER NL AS 


REGI 


FIDEI DEFENSORI. 


Ῥ 
Ty 
‘> 
¥ 
δ 





PRAFATIO. 


Annus jam agitur undevigesimus, ex quo hance disserta- 
tionem historicam adornavit Reverendus admodum in Christo 
Pater Johannes Cosinus, cum Lutetie Parisiorum, (grassante 
tum in Anglid immani sceleratorum hominum rebellione,) 
Regis Ecclesieque causi exularet. In ea enim civitate uti 
commoraretur, jusserat rex serenissimus Carolus II., cum, 
relicté Gallid (ob pactum nuper feedus a Gallorum Rege 
cum Anglis perduellibus) in Germaniam se conferret, ea- 
dem ipsi demandata provincia, quam a beato Carolo 1., 
supra mortalium omnium laudes principe, prius acceperat, 
nempe, ut in sacello regio sacra perageret, Anglisque 
exulibus, tum familiz regi, tum aliis, quotquot ea tem- 
pestate Parisiis degebant, in reformata religione, quam 
profitetur Ecclesia Anglicana, continendis confirmandisque 
operam navaret. 

-Hujus autem dissertationis scribende hee fuit occasio. 
Cum rex serenissimus Colonize Agrippine consedisset, 
atque invisisset celsissimum quendam sacri imperil princi- 
pem pontificium, non procul ab ea civitate tum agentem, a 
quo perquam honorifice invitatus fuerat; accidit (quod fieri 
solet inter homines diversam religionem profitentes) ut de 
quibusdam Fidei Christianz capitibus, que inter protes- 
tantes et pontificios controvertuntur, quidam ex Jesuitarum 
societate cum viris illis generosis atque nobilibus, (quos 
individuos, rebus etiam durissimis, fortune comites et in 
constanti Reformat Religionis professione imitatores ha- 
buit,) sermones miscerent; et Ecclesiam Anglicanam here- 
sews ream peragere conarentur, maxime ob fidem, quam 
de sanctissimo Eucharistie sacramento  profitetur ;—Kam 
enim, nullam realem, sed imaginariam nescio quam Corporis 
et Sanguinis Christi preesentiam, tantum admittere ;—Eccle- 
siz Romane vero fidem eandem omnino esse, quam per omnia 


6 PREFATIO. 


secula constanter tenuit Catholica Christi Ecclesia de hoe 
augustissimo mysterio ; scilicet, totam substantiam panis et 
vini in Corporis et Sanguinis Christi Domini substantiam 
converti, quee quidem conversio, a concilio Tridentino, recte 
Transubstantiatio dicta sit. Hee, et alia ad eandem rem 
spectantia, coram ipsi regii majestate et celsissimo illo 
principe apud quem tum agebat, a Jesuitis haud secus dice- 
bantur, ac si apud omnes rerum (maxime vero antiquitatis 
ecclesiasticz) peritos liquidissime constarent. 

Noverat rex serenissimus a Jesuitis Ecclesia Anglicane 
turpissime imponi, neque id ignorabant viri ill primarn, 
qui tum regiam majestatem comitabantur; nec dubita- 
bant quin vana essent, et a vero aliena, que iidem homines 
jactitabant de Transubstantiatione Romani. Verum, cum 
celsissimo illi principi visum fuisset, librum manuscriptum 
de eodem argumento (in quo aiebat ea omnia ex probatis 
auctoribus confirmari) viris illustribus legendum prebere ; 
censuerunt illi rem totam cum reverendo Cosino commu- 
nicandam, obnixe rogantes ut Hcclesiam Anglicanam ab 
eA calumnid vindicaret; et, que sit illius, de vera et reali 
preesentid Christi in sancto Eucharistiz sacramento, sen- 
tentia, disertis verbis declarare. Statim itaque, arrepto 
calamo, vir prestantissimus atque ad omne bonum opus 
(maxime vero ubi causa Ecclesiz Dei agebatur) semper 
paratissimus hancce dissertationem conscripsit®, quam viri 


8 [ Vid. Epistolas duas, una cum Hist. 
Trans. Papal. MS. ap. D. Joh. Cosini 
Biblioth. Dunelm. compactas, que sic 
exscripte leguntur; videlicet: 

“To my worthy friend Dr. Cousins 
in the Palais Royal at Paris. 
Cologne, June 8, 1655. 
Sir, 

In the last entertainment our 
Master had with the Duke of New- 
bourg, a dispute arose about the real 
presence, wherein the D. was taught 
to argue to be able to convert his 
Duchess: (which he did.) I under- 
took the argument with him, which 
broke off undecided betwixt us. He 
hath since sent me a paper, the theme 
whereof is this: ‘Corpus et Sanguis 
Christi sunt realiter in Eucharistia, 
&e.’ He quoteth divers sayings out 
of the Greek and Latin Fathers in 


each of the first eight ages, to favour 
the opinion of Transubstantiation, and 
thence draweth the conclusion of that 
doctrine, alleging many heretics cen- 
sured and condemned for dissenting. 
The paper is too long: otherwise 
I would send you a copy of it. But 
this is the scope and substance, to 
which he proyoketh my answer in writ- 
ing. I have hitherto excused it for 
want of books: but, to deal truly with 
you, I dare not adventure upon that 
main point without help ; and Dr. Earles 
will not meddle in controversy. 
Therefore I desire you to send me a 
short state of the question in Latin, to 
shew how far the primitive Church 
believed it, and when and how the 
Romanists stretched it with the absurd- 
ities of their opinion, and the foul con- 
sequences of adoring the Sacrament, — 
an answer to all those ordinary expres- 


PREFATIO. 7 


illustres serenissimi principis scripto opponerent, et (si vide- 
retur) illius celsitudini, par pari referentes, exhiberent. 

At, quanquam viri illi nobilissimi, aliique a quibus perlec- 
tum est hoc opusculum, szpius hortati sunt, ut illud publici 
juris faceret, id tamen ab 60, nisi paucos menses ante obitum 
impetrare non valuerunt. Nam, cum in privatos amicorum 
usus tantum illud exarasset, oper pretium satis amplum 
ipsi videbatur, quod iis non fuisset prorsus inutile. Sed, 
cum jam recruduisset ante aliquot annos de Presentia 
Christi in Sanctissimo Eucharistiz Sacramento controver- 
sia, atque etiamnum inter viros celeberrimos, reverendum 
Claudium, Parisiensium reformatorum pastorem, et Arnal- 
dum doctorem Sorbonicum, scriptis publicis utrinque cum 
magna eruditionis atque eloquentiz laude agitetur, aliique 
(ut fit) horum exemplo excitati, de eodem argumento disser- 
tationes varias edidissent ; amicorum plurimorum (tum eorum 
qui tractatum hune olim legerant, tum aliorum qui de eo 
tantum audiverant) flagitationibus assiduis victus tandem 





sions of the Fathers, and the positive 
opinion of our Church in the point. 
Perey Church will convey your an- 
swer to me, which will for ever oblige 
Your most humble servant, 


Gilb. Talbot. 





Responsio. 


Paris, Sept. 27, 1655- 

Sir, 

It is now about a month, since 
I made an end of what I had to say in 
answer to all your quesita for explana- 
tion. And I think I have given a full 
account, both of the state of the ques- 
tion between the Romanists and us 
concerning the real presence of Christ 
in the Sacrament, and of the positive 
sentence of our own Church in the 
point. Whereuhto I have added the 
agreement of other reformed Churches 
with us, and our common assent to the 
doctrine of the ancient Fathers, who 
were never any patrons of Transub- 
stantiation. 

I have likewise given both general 
and particular answers to all those or- 
dinary expressions of the Fathers which 
the Romanists plead against us, and 
think to make some advantage of them 
for themselves. I have proceeded his- 


torically through the whole matter of 
Transubstantiation: (for in controver- 
sies of this nature, whether we or the 
papists be the true Catholics, it is the 
only, and best, and the most satisfac- 
tory way so to do:) and I trust I have 
said enough to satisfy all the objections 
and allegations, that eitherthe Duke of 
Newburg or any of his tutors have to 
bring against us. : 

Neither have I omitted the time and 
place, where this new opinion of theirs 
began, the absurdities and fatal conse- 
quences that followed it, the opposi- 
tions and disputations of learned men 
against it, the altercations thatthey had 
among themselves aboutit, and the mean 
account that was made of it, till of very 
late time a few men at Trent, and the 
Pope at Rome, advanced it to an article 
of their faith. 

If herein I may have done any ser- 
vice to our own Church, or given you 
that content which was desired and ex- 
pected from me, I shall account the time 
that I have spent about it well be- 
stowed, and rest, Sir, 


Your very humble servant, 
J.C. 


You should have had this original 
sooner, but that I have stayed about a 
month to get it copied.’’ 


8 PREFATIO. 


cessit ; eoque facilius, ut eorum monitis obsequeretur, ad- 
ductus est, quod 5101 videretur errorem, quem perpetuo 
errat clarissimus doctor Sorbonicus, toto hocce opusculo 
quamquam tam diu ante scripto evideutissime confutasse. 
Quezcunque enim, de reali seu vera preseutia Corporis ac 
Sanguinis Christi Domini in Eucharistid, apud antiquos 
patres legere est, ea ad Transubstantiationem Romanam 
statim adaptat ; et sibi de adversario egregie triumphasse, et 
Reformatorum causam jugulasse videtur ; quanquam immane 
quantum distant illa duo,—realis seu vera Christi presentia 
in sancté Coena, et panis vinique Eucharistici transubstan- 
tiatio in Corpus et Sanguinem Domini. Ista enim portentum 
est, quod nec Sacra Scriptura docet, nec fides potest credere, 
nec recta ratio capere, nec sensus admittere, quodque apud 
primeevee antiquitatis scriptores nusquam reperias ; illa vero, 
tum Scripture Sacre consona est, tum Christiane Fidei 
analogiz congrua, et rectz rationi accommoda, (ut ut corpo- 
reis sensibus non percipiatur, quia spiritualis est ;) ac denique 
unanimi sanctorum patrum cousensu passim docetur. 

Nec contra facit, quod de pane et vino S. Eucharistiz, quasi 
de ipso Corpore, ipsoque Sanguine Domini, quandoque loquan- 
tur; usitatd scilicet (ubi de Sacramentis sermo fit) phraseo- 
Jogid, qua rei significatee nomen ipsi signo tribuitur. Nam 
iidem ipsi sancti patres eundem panem et vinum Eucharis- 
ticum, typos, symbola, signa, figuram Corporis et Sanguinis 
Christi passim vocare solent; unde liquet eos nobiscum, 
non cum Transubstantiatoribus, sentire. Possumus enim, 
incolumi nostra de sacramento Eucharistiz sententia, pri- 
oribus illis uti loquutibus, quas 5101 favere pontificu arbitran- 
tur, (modo eas, uti par est, sacramentaliter intelligamus :) 
posterioribus vero uti nemo potest, quin eo ipso, quod iis 
utitur, figmentum Transubstantiationis evertat; quando- 
quidem ista duo,—panem in Corpus Christi transubstantiari, 
et esse simul typum, symbolum, signum, figuram Corporis 
Christi,—sint prorsus ἀσύστατα. Nam res, qu desiit esse, 
alterius rei, nedum sui ipsius, typus, symbolum, signum, aut 
figura, esse nequit. Sed ista in ipso opere fusius habentur. 

Expectet jam forte lector, ut de prestantissimo historic 
hujus dissertationis auctore nonnulla saltem hic addantur, 
postquam de illius scribende, atque in vulgus mittende, 


PREFATIO. 9 


occasione dictum est. Verum aggredienti tanta surget di- 
cendorum seges, (si vel attingantur singula, que de viro 
magno memoratu digna sunt,) ut nequeant, absque magna 
tum ipsius, tum lectoris injurid, prefationis angustiis con- 
cludi. Sed id, Deo dante, alio loco prestabitur. 

Unum, tamen, lectorem non nescire velim :—virum hune 
eruditissimum, atque (uti jam liquet) reformat religioni 
addictissimum, in is, vel in primis, fuisse, quos Puritani, ante 
turbatam Angliam, defectionis ad pontificios accusabant : 
quo nomine gravia multa ab iis passus, ut graviora vitaret, 
in exilium ire coactus est. In δὰ tamen calumnid pergebant 
homines maledicentissimi, eo ipso tempore, quo vir optimus 
hance dissertationem scribebat adversus Transubstantiationem. 
Vale. 


[Joh. Durel.] 





αἰ να Le 
vera ae: νῦν aa 
a ΡΥ : i eae einenn Cig 

: | an ren ADH NEO aye Pee a 
a αν Ἀρϑεν ὩΣ πο ΩΣ ἐμ beg 
a Pre ἘΦ Mi me ἮΣΑΝ Ls tT se hi 




















- “ΤᾺ τ hy Pe yy ἊΝ 
ee ie _ ᾿ ‘ Mae: % “ne 
ἢ a a) 
Be AS 4/9) inn ene Μὴ 
- =a 
- ae a8 
pT. fa! Ὶ 
ee | er υ 
i f 
‘ { 
- a. Ε 7 4 
= 7 
; : 
ig 
᾿ . 
a 
ὡς Ἷ 
ἊΝ ῥ 
ἂν 
ae Au? 
ἢ 4 
a 
" 
᾽ 
t 
ἃ ' i 








ELENCHUS 


CAPITUM HUJUS LIBRI. 


Pr#FATIOo de occasione scribende hujus dissertationis. 


CAPUT Tf. 


In quo: I. Realis, id est, vera et non imaginaria, Christi presentia, in 
Sacramento Eucharistie, e δ. Scripturis adstruitur. II. et III. Quod 
tamen Transubstantiatoribus haud favet, quum non crasse aut carna- 
liter, sed mystice et Sacramentaliter, intelligendum sit. IV. Sacramen- 
torum natura et ratio. V. Mediantibus elementis panis et vini, Ipse 
Christus spiritualiter et mystice a fidelibus manducatur. VI. Presentia 
et mandueatio spiritualis non tollit rei veritatem, sive substantiam. 
VII. Modus presenti imperscrutabilis, nec temere definiendus, 


GAPE tL. 


I. II. III. et seqq. Protestantium omnium consensus de reali, id est, 
vera? presentia Christi in Eucharistia, manifeste constat, tam ex variis 
Ecclesie Anglicane libris publica auctoritate editis, ut et ex virorum 
in eadem Ecclesia probatissimorum et celeberrimorum scriptis, quam ex 
aliis reformatarum Ecclesiarum publicis confessionibus. 


CAPUT III. 


1. Quid per τὸ ‘Christum spiritualiter presentem esse in Eucharistia’ 
intelligant Romanenses. II. Quid per illud ipsum Bernardus intellexerit. 
III. Quid per id intelligant Protestantium Kcclesie. IV. Fides pre- 
sentiam Christi non facit, sed preesupponit. V. Unio Corporis Christi cum 
symbolo panis sacramentalis est. 


CAPUT IV. 


I. De transmutatione panis et vini in Corpus et Sanguinem Domini, 
que poutificiis Transubstantiatio dicitur. II. De omnipotentia Dei. 
III. De accidentibus panis. IV. Sacramentalis unio signi et signati. V. 


® Sed non carnali. 


12 ELENCHUS CAPITUM HUJUS LIBRI. 


et VI. Status controversies tam negative, quam affirmative, declaratur. 
VII. Concilii Tridentini definitio. Bulla ΡΠ IV. Papz, et forma jura- 
menti ab eodem Papa prescripti. Decvetale Innocentii III. Jesuitarum 
dictata. VIII. Portentum ingens, Transubstantiatio. 


GAPUT V. 


Transubstantiationem, nec secundum yocem aut nomen, nec secundum 
rem aut sententiam, in S. Scripturis aut antiquis Ecclesiz doctoribus 
haberi, imo, cum eisdem pugnare, ostenditur ; atque, adeo, de fide non 


esse. 


CAPUT. VI. 


J. 11. IIL. et seqq. In quibus, veteris Ecclesie doctrinam et praxin 
cum doctrina de Transubstantiatione pugnare, fusius ostenditur ; atque 
ad objectiones pontificiorum ex antiquitate frustra quesitas respon- 
detur. 


CAPUT VII. 


De scriptoribus seeculi undecimi, et sequentis; e quibus clarissime 
deducitur historia Transubstantiationis papalis. I. Pape istorum tem- 
porum quales fuerunt. II. Infelix seeculum, quo scindebantur theologi 
circa rem EKucharisticam. III. Fulberti sententia. IV. Quam sequitur 
ejus discipulus Berengarius, cui alii contradicunt. V. VI. Berengarii 
doctrina defensa. VII. Leonis noni rugitus contra Berengarium. VIII. 
Victoris II. synodus Turonensis, que Berengarium, tanquam recte sen- 
tientem, dimisit. IX. Nicolaus II. Papa novam indicit synodum contra 
Berengarium: cui iniqua atque stupenda recantatio injuncta est. X. 
Glossze ordinarize censura de ista, Berengario prescripta, recantatione 
XI. Quam per vim, et metu mortis, sibi extortam fuisse dixit. Lanfran- 
cus et Guitmundus contra eum scribunt. XII. Hildebrandus Papa, 
et ejus concilium Rom., ad quod Bereng. iterum vocatus est, et frustra 
condemnatus. XIII. S. Bernardi doctrina approbata. XIV. Ruperti 
sententia. XV. P. Lomb. de transubstantiato pane nihil definire potuit, 
et de accidentibus panis sine subjecto miserabiliter philosophatur. XVI. 
Otho Frisingensis, et ejus cowtanei, panem et vinum in Eucharistia vera 
manere fatentur. XVII. P. Blesensis et S. Eduensis notantur; qui 
primi omnium ‘Transubstantiationis vocabulum usurparunt. XVIII. 
Seculum XIII, in quo Innocentius III. Papa decretum suum de Tran- 
substantiatis pane et vino in Corpus et Sanguinem Domini publicayit. 
XIX. et XX. Innocentii III. mira arrogantia. Synodus Lateranensis de 
hoc articulo nihil decrevit. XXI. Ejusdem Innocentii crudelitas, qui per 
carnificinas, et vivicomburia, novam fidei suz doctrinam stabilire voluit. 
XXII. Gersonis dictum de Romana illius temporis Ecclesia. Multa 
figmenta e Tiansubstantiatione orta. Questiones portentose et inex- 


ELENCHUS CAPITUM HUJUS LIBRI. 13 


tricabiles. XXIII. Mcnachorum novi ordines, et scholastici. XXIV. 
Eorum altereationes et disputationes abominande. XXV. Sacramentum 
indignissime tractatum ab eis, qui illud in proprium Corpus Christi 
transubstantiatum crediderunt. XXVI. et XXVII. Holkot, Aquinas, 
Albertus Magnus, et alii scholastici, quamyis pro Transubstantiatoribus 
aliquando non faciant, omnia tamen ad Papz Romani judicium referunt. 
XXVIII. Synodus Constantiensis, que poculum Laicis abstulit. XXIX. 
Card. Cameracensis Transubstantiationem ex S. Literis probari posse 
negat. XXX. Synodus Florentina et Eugenii IV. Instructio Armeniorum 


notantur. XXXI. Anathema papale in synodo Tridentina nuilli formi- 
dandum. Conclusio operis. 











Ε Ἣν 
" 
" ν " 
“irr 
~ 
5. . 
. co 
> 
‘ 
»ς ; 
ἡ 
| aie 
i 
= 
" . 
' 
: . 
- 
ἃ * 
bie ‘ 
cr 
Fi Ξ 
.Υ̓ ny 7 
͵ 
᾿ 
ι 
ne i 4 
é 
‘ - 
oo oc cA 
ae | 





ἢ 





he 
ΓᾺ ἢ 
a Ὁ 





> s 
- 
5 


Νὰ δ 


rere 
ex 
¢ 
ray ' 
. 
ἣν 
L 
"1 


= 
Sia 


Ἂ πο AS 


“ἢ 








Ἐ 

4 
προς 
“Ὁ “Ὁ 
Δ τὴ 
















CAPUT I. 


I. REALIS, ID EST, VERA ET NON IMAGINARIA, CHRISTI PRESENTIA ἽΝ SA- 
CRAMENTO EUCHARISTLE E S. SCRIPTURIS ADSTRUITUR. II. ET III. quop 
TAMEN TRANSUBSTANTIATORIBUS HAUD FAVET, QUUM NON CRASSE AUT 
CARNALITER, SED MYSTICE, SPIRITUALITER, ET SACRAMENTALITER, INTEL- 
LIGENDUM sIT. IV. SACRAMENTORUM NATURA, ET RATIO. V. MEDIAN- 
TIBUS ELEMENTIS PANIS ET VINI, IPSE CHRISTUS SPIRITUALITER ET 
MYSTICE A FIDELIBUS MANDUCATUR. VI. PREHSENTIA, ET MANDUCATIO 
SPIRITUALIS, NON TOLLIT REI VERITATEM SIVE SUBSTANTIAM. VII. MopUs 
PRESENTLE IMPERSCRUTABILIS, NEC TEMERE DEFINIENDUS. 


I. Θυκ ἃ Christo Domino in solenni hujus augustissimi Sa- C A P. 


cramenti institutione, ad perpetuam Sui commemorationem, 

prolata sunt verba; nempe, ‘‘ Hoc est Corpus Meum, quod pro εἰς XXVi, 
vobis traditur :”’—“ Hic est Sanguis Meus, qui pro vobis effun- τ a aan 
ditur in remissionem peccatorum ;”—omnino infallibilia, atque 19. 
verissima esse, universa per orbem terrarum sancta confitetur 
Ecclesia. Si quis autem contrarium affirmaverit, aut veraci- 

tatem! Christi indubium vocare ausus fuerit, dictisve Ejus ' [aut po- 

entiam, 


fidem derogirit, nec 115 adsensum suum prebuerit, (nisi per ,, a5. 


figmentum et nudam figuram expositis et detortis,) illum? in Daas 
ruoric 


ἃ Ut alicubi scripsit G. Calixtus, in  suasi I/lum non aliter quam disposuit adscript. | 





eruditis. suis exercitationibus. [ Vid. 
Georgii Calixti Disput. de calice Do- 
minico omnibus ad sanctam Eucha- 
-ristiz communionem admissis porri- 
gendo; ad cale. Georgii Cassandri 
Dialog. de communione sub utraque 
specie; ed. 4to. Helmest. 1642, p. 
81. — Diabolus omnem movit lapi- 
dem, ut sanctissimum et venerabile 
hoe mysterium vel violaret plane vel 
mutiJaret. Primum per eos tentavit, 
qui Corpus et Sanguinem Christi au- 
ferre, et nuda signa relinquere, volue- 
runt.— Vid. etiam G. Calixti Annotat. 
et Animadvers. in Confessionem Refor- 
matorum Thorunii in Colloquio ann. 
1645. Sept. 13. oblatam, &c. ed. 4to. 
Wolferbyti, 1655. cap. De S. Eucha- 
rist. § 38. pp. 68—70.—Nos itaque 
simplicibus Christi Redemptoris nostri 
verbis simplici fide inhawremus, per- 


pronuntiasse, neque aliter disposuisse 
quam pronuntiavit: atque ita nobis- 
met ipsis recte consulemus, et triste ac 
perniciosum schisma, quod Protestan- 
tium Ecclesias divellit, componemus. 

te Unde Chemnitius : ‘ Fun- 
damentum presentiz Corporis Christi 
in Cond Lutherus monuit non esse 
collocandum in disputatione de ubiqui- 
tate, sed in veritate verborum instituti- 
onis.’ Idem rectissime: ‘Nos pre- 
sentiam istam, quia testimonium habe- 
mus Verbi Dei, simpliciter credimus: 
de modo vero presentiz, quia Verbo 
Dei revelatus non est, judicamus non 
esse disputandum. ‘Vid. etiam pp. 
38—41, 51; et passim.]—Et, ante 
eum, Mart. Chemnitius in Exam. 
Cone. Trid. [Vid. lib. de Eucharistiz 
Sacramento, par. ii. p. 65. (ed. Fran- 
cof, 1596.)—Simpliciter vero et aperte 


16 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRAESENTIA 


Ecclesiis nostris nec tolerare, nec excusare, vel possumus, vel 
debemus. Quicquid enim Sacra nos docet Scriptura, id nobis 
verum ac indubitatum esse oportet. Verum igitur nec minus 
indubium esse fatendum est, quod dixit Christus, “Caro Mea 
vere est cibus, et Sanguis Meus est potus;” que, juxta B. 
Paulum, per panem et poculum nobis communicantur: eun- 
dem enim “ panem” “communionem Corporis Christi,” iti- 
demque ‘ poculum” “Sanguinis Ejus communionem,’ 
pellavit. 

II. Ex quibus B. Apostoli verbis manifeste constat, quod 
panis et poculum (que hujus S. Eucharistize symbola di- 
cuntur) nequaquam substantialiter transmutata, aut penitus 
sublata, vel destructa sint; sed in hunc finem, per verba 
Christi, solenniter consecrata, ut communicationi Corporis 
et Sanguinis Sui certissime inserviant. 

III. Atque hinc itidem liquet, locutionem tam Christi, 
quam Apostoli, sacramentaliter et mystice intelligendam 
esse, neque crassam aliquam aut carnalem Corporis San- 
guinisque presentiam ex eorum verbis posse adstrui. 

IV. Et, licet vox ipsa Sacramenti in S.S. nusquam de 
Eucharistia usurpetur, Ecclesia tamen Christi, a primis inde 
seculis, hoc nomine ὃ. Eucharistiam insignivit, et preesen- 
tiam Corporis ac Sanguinis Domini mysticam et sacramen- 
talem semper appellare consuevit. Sacramentalis autem 
locutio nomen rei signatze 1051 etiam signo® non incommode 
tribuit : °sacramentorum enim natura, et usitata de ipsis 


2 


ap- 


profiteor, me amplecti et probare illa- adest, exhibetur, et sumitur, Christus 


rum Ecclesiarum sententiam, que ag- 
noscunt et docent veram et substantia- 
lem prasentiam Corporis et Sanguinis 
Christi in Coena, in eo sensu quem 
verba Coen simplici, propria, usitata, 
et genuina sua significatione, prabent. 
δἰ τ Ὁ ΘΙ ὧς ὦ Hee pauca vero ideo hoc 
loco annotare volui, ut ostenderem 
meam confessionem conjunctam esse 
cum illis Ecclesiis, que a Sacramenta- 
riorum opinionibus alienz sunt, et sen- 
tentiam de vera et substautiali pre- 
sentia Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in 
Coena, juxta simplicem et genuinam 
verborum institutionis proprietatem, 
amplectuntur et profitentur. ] Atque in 
Locis Theologicis. [Vid. par. iii. lib. 
de Coena Domini, p. 166. (ed. Wite- 
berg, 1610.)—Quia enim de Eo, quod 
in usu sacre Coenz cum pane et vino 


pronuntiat: ‘Hoe est Corpus Meum:’ 
‘Hic est Sanguis Meus;’ vera igitur 
et substantialis praesentia Corporis et 
Sanguinis Christi, in actione Coene 
que juxta institutionem in his terris 
celebratur, verbis illis traditur et asseve- 
ratur. Et improbandi sunt, qui per 
quoscunque tropos verbis illis senten- 
tiam affingunt, vel de signo, vel effica- 
cia Corporis absentis; aut qui aliam 
presentiam fingunt, quam sicut verba 
sonant. Et hoc est unum κριτήριον. 

b Exod. xii. 11. (Agnus iste) “est 
Pascha Jehove.’’ Exod. xii. 21. “Ju- 
gulate’’ (Agnum) ipsum “ Pascha” Je- 
hove. 1 Cor. x. 3.... “ Kandem es- 
cam spiritualem.” 1 Cor.x.4..... 
‘ Petra illa erat Christus.”’ 

¢ (Conf. MS. Dunelm., in quo 
hee verba interposita sunt:—‘ Et, 


CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 17 


loquendi ratio, postulare videtur, ut symbolis non solum 
rerum nomina, sed et earum proprietates, imo effecta, tri- 
buantur. Atque hane ob causam panis ille communio Cor- 
poris Christi, tam perspicue (prout antea dicebamus) quam 
apposite, ab Apostolo appellatur. 

VY. Hoe quoque planum est, non tam fuisse Christo pro- 
positum docere, quid elementa panis et vini sint naturd 
atque substantid sud, quam quid in hoe mysterio sint signi- 
ficatione, usu, et officio; quum non tantum® per hee ele- 
menta Corpus et Sanguis Domini aptissime represententur, 
sed etiam 115 mediantibus Ipse Christus, ex Ipsius instituto, 
verissime omnibus exhibeatur, et a fidelibus sacramentaliter 
sive mystice manducetur: unde fit, quod et “ Nos in Lllo, et 
Ille in nobis vere sit, et maneat.” 

VI. Atque hec est spiritualis illa (non minus tamen vera, 
et indubia, quam si corporalis esset) Christi Carnis mandu- 
catio, non quidem simpliciter, quatenus caro est absque omni 
alio respectu; (sic enim nec prebetur nobis, nec prodest :) 





quum per subjectum hujus enuncia- 
tionis nihil alind quam verus panis 
quem in manus suas acceperat et frege- 
rat Christus, per attributum vero nihil 
nisi verum et naturale Corpus Christi 
quod pro nobis traditum est et cruci- 
fixum, intelligi debeat, neutrobi quidem 
tropus locum habet. Interim, quum 
panis et Corpus Christi ita sint dispa- 
rata, ut alterum de altero nulla ratione 
predicari queat proprie et essentialiter, 
(quod itidem omnes utrinque confite- 
mur,) omnino necesse est, ut ejusdem 
enunciationis copula mystice et sacra- 
mentaliter intelligatur. 

Proinde Eucharistiam et presentiam 
quam diximus mysterium et sacramen- 
tum Ecclesia semper habuit et appella- 
vit, quemadmodum adhuc alia religi- 
onis nostrz mysteria usurpat. Hujus 
rei necessitatem evincit, primo aliorum 
Sacre Scripture locorum collatio, (S. 
Joh. vi. 63; 1 Cor. x. 16,) in quibus 
res eadem verbis minime controversis 
proponitur; deinde, generalis sacra- 
mentorum natura, atque usitata de ip- 
sis dictionis ratio, quasymbolis vel no- 
mina vel proprietates, vel effecta rerum 
tribuuntur. (Exod. xii. 11, 12; Ley. iy. 
3; Hosea iv. 8; Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 
12.) Atque hance ob causam,”’ &c. } 

4 [Vid. locum in MS, Dunelm., 
ubi verba sic se habent: ‘‘.... quum 
non tantum representant, sed et simul 


COSIN. 


exhibent rem significatam, adeo ut jux- 
ta mandatum Christi a fidelibus ac- 
cepta, atque hausta, id efficiant, quod 
et nos in IIlo, et Ille in nobis sit. Hoe 
enim respectu corde credimus, et ore 
confitemur, elementa illa esse Corpus 
et Sanguinem Christi: illud, qua cru- 
cifixum et mortuum: hune, qua pro 
nobis effusum: non simpliciter qua 
Corpus et Sanguinem. Sic enim nec 
prebentur nobis, nec prosunt; quia 
non aliter nobis in hoe sacratissimo 
ccenz mysterio proponuntur, quam qua 
pro mundi vita tradita sunt: quod tum 
adjecta verba, tum fractionis et effusi- 
onis ritus, declarant. Quamvis autem 
Corpus Christi sursum in ceelis sit, 
non deorsum in terris!: (unde illud 
‘sursum corda’ in Ecclesia universa a 
primis usque seculis usitatum:) non 
tamen propterea a Coena Sua abest 
Christus, quandoquidem presentia non 
partis sive Corporis solius est, sed totius 
Persone. Et, quum Corpus, qua cru- 
cifixum et mortuum, non amplius sit 
in rerum natura, perperam statuitur 
presens in sacramento, qua tale sive 
corporaliter. Spirituali vero, et divina, 
mystica, et sacramentali presentia, 
nemo non est contentus ; nisi qui fasti- 
dito Spiritu et Divinitate nihil preter 
carnem sapit, et cui denique quod spi- 
rituala est perinde est ac si nihil 
esset.’” | 


S.Joh. vi. 
56. 


1[Hecru- 
brica de- 
leta sunt 
verba. | 


1 Sed non 
earnali. 


18 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRHSENTIA 


sed quatenus crucifixa, et pro mundi vita tradita® erat. Spiri- 
tualis enim Carnis Christi manducatio, per quam, operante 
Spiritu Sancto, anime fidelium, non ventres, pascuntur, veri- 
tatem et substantiam rei nequaquam tollit. Quod nemo 
unquam diffitebitur, nisi qui, fastidito Spiritu et operatione 
divina, nihil preter carnem sapit, et cui, quod spirituale et 
sacramentale est, perinde est ac si nihil esset. 

VII. Modum vero presentiz Corporis Sanguinisque Do- 
mini in 8. Eucharistia nos, qui protestantes sumus, et ad 
normam prisce ac Catholic Kcclesiz reformati, anxie non 
scrutamur ; sed (quod fecit prima et purissima Dei Ecclesia) 
eum sapientiz et potentize Domini committimus, Ejusque 
verbis acquiescimus, et assensum vera ac indubia fide pre- 
bemus. Idem si fecissent olim‘, aut nune facerent transub- 
stantiatores pontificiil, neque modum presentiz, nuper ab 
eis excogitatum, tanquam articulum fideiS omnibus salvandis 
absolute et simpliciter necessarium, sub diro anathemate 
determinissent, minus profecto rixarum, plus pacis et con- 
cordize, in Ecclesia Dei hodie haberemus. 


CAPUT II. 


J. 11. Ill, et sraq. PROTESTANTIUM OMNIUM CONSENSUS DE REALI, ID 
EST, VERA’, PRESENTIA CHRISTI IN EUCHARISTIA MANIFESTE CONSTAT, 
TAM EX VARIIS ECCLESLE ANGLICAN LIBRIS PUBLICA AUTORITATE EDITIS, 
UT ET EX VIRORUM IN EADEM ECCLESIA PROBATISSIMORUM ET CELEBER- 
RIMORUM SCRIPTIS, QUAM EX ALIIS REFORMATARUM ECCLESIARUM PUB- 
LICIS CONFESSIONIBUS. 


I. De reali igitur, (id est, vera et non imaginaria,) pre- 
sentia Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia, Protes- 
tantium Ecclesie nulle dubitant ; neque locus relinguitur, ut 
quisquam de earum communi confessione aliquid mali sus- 


© “Corpus, quod pro vobis traditur: tione priora et meliora secula (absti- 


Sanguis, qui pro vobis effunditur.’— nuerunt?).—Not. rubr. in MS. Du- 
Ut supra, num. I. nelm. | 
f [Sed sequiora demum tempora ad § In Cone. Trid. [Vid. Sess. xiii. 


determinandum presentiz modum (de- can. 1, 2, 6; ap. Labbe, tom. xiv. col. 
scenderunt?,) a qua tamen determina- 808. ] 





CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI®., 19 


picetur, quasi a Fide Catholica, hic in parte, vel tantillum c Α Ρ. 
discederent. = 

II. Facile enim est, consensum scriptorum et ecclesiarum 
reformatarum producere; quo clarissime omnibus (quibus 
quidem mens vel oculus non laborat) ostendi potest, illos 
omnes istius veritatis tenacissimos esse, atque a prisca et 
Catholica Fide nullatenus recessisse. 

III. Ordiar ab Ecclesia Anglicana; ubi qui in sacris con- Ecclesie 


᾿ : . hee . Anglica- 
stituti sunt, omnes lata lege tenentur, '“ Ne quid unquam τα σοη- 
doceant, .... quod a populo religiose..... . credi velint, fessio. 


nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrine Veteris aut Novi Testa- 
menti, quodque ex illa ipsa doctrina catholici patres et 
veteres episcopi collegerint...... Qui secus fecerit, et con- 
traria doctrina populum turbaverit, excommunicandus est 
[excommunicabitur.”] Docet igitur', in sacramento Eucha- 
ristiz, “Corpus Christi dari, accipi, et manducari;. . 
atque adeo, rite....sumentibus, panem (consecratum et) 
fractum esse communicationem Corporis Christi; similiter 
et poculum benedictum esse communi([eatijonem Sanguinis 
Christi :—impios autem, et indigne ad tant rei sacramen- 
tum accedentes, illud sibi ad judicium manducare, et con- 
demnationem bibere, quia efficiuntur rei ejusdem Corporis et 
Sanguinis Domini.” Orat etiam, in solenni ante benedictio- 
nem elementorum prece, in hunc ferme modum :—“ Concede, 
quzesumus, misericors Domine, ut sic edamus Carnem Fili Tui 
dilecti Jesu Christi, et bibamus Ejus Sanguinem, ut nostra cor- 
pora, peccatis inquinata, munda fiant perceptione sacratissimi 
Corporis Illius, et nostrz anime laventur pretioso Ipsius San- 
guine, atque ut perpetuo habitemus in Ko, et Ipse in nobis; 
Amen.” Sacerdos autem, sive presbyter, panem et vinum be- 
nedicens seu consecrans, sic ait: **‘ Exaudi nos, quasumus, 
misericors Pater, et concede, ut nos, sumentes has tuas creatu- 
ras, panem et vinum, juxta sacrosanctam institutionem Filii 








h Tn libro canonum pnblica auctori- 
tate edit. ann, 1571. cap. De Conciona- 
toribus, [ Vid. lib. quorundam canonum 
discipline Ecclesie Anglicane; ed. 
41ο. Lond. 1571. pp. 19, 20.] 

i Articuli Religionis Christiane, in 
quos consensum est ab Episce., &c., in 
legitima et sancta synodo KEcclesiz 
Anglicane ann. 1562, cap. 28, et 29, 


c 


et publicis regni legibus stabiliti. [Vid. 

Corp. et Syntagm. Confessionum, &c. 
105.—Et conf. Liturg. Angl., 

Ord. Sacr. Communion., Exhortat.] 

j In Ordine Saere Communionis,. 
regni legibus confirmato; [ap. Liturg. 
Eccl. Anglicane. | 

k Tbidem, 


2 


CAP. 
11: 


20 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRESENTIA 


Tui Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, in memoriam Ejus mortis et 
passionis, participes simus sanctissimi Corporis et Sanguinis 
Adhzxcverba, Ejus; Qui, eidem nocte qua tradebatur, acce- 


presbyter panem - - . ἘΣ 
in manus suas Plt panem, et gratias agens fregit, ac dedit dis- 
accipit. cipulis Suis, dicens, Accipite, comedite: Hoc est 


Corpus Meum, quod pro vobis datur: hoe facite in comme- 
morationem Mei. Similiter, postquam ccenatum est, accepit 
calicem, et gratias agens dedit illis, dicens, 
Bibite ex hoc omnes; hic enim est Sanguis 
Meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro 
multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum: hoc facite, 
quotiescunque biberitis, in commemorationem Mei.” Idem 
minister populo, in genua provoluto, Eucharistiam tradens, 
quum exhibet panem, dicit: ' ‘Corpus Domini nostri Jesu 
Christi, quod pro te traditum est, conservet corpus tuum 
et animam tuam in vitam eternam.” Similiter poculum 
exhibens ait: ‘“Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui 
pro te effusus est, conservet,’ &c. Deinde, post commu- 
nionem, subjungit gratiarum actionem, et precem,—“ Quod 
nos, qui hee sacrosancta mysteria rite percepimus, pascere 
dignetur Deus spirituali cibo pretiosissimi Corporis et San- 
guinis Christi,” &c.; uni cum hymno, ‘Gloria in excelsis 
Deo, &c. Quin et in communi ejusdem Ecclesiz nostre 
Catechismo, publica auctoritate edito, atque omnibus pree- 
scripto, ad interrogationem de interna parte hujus sacra- 
menti respondetur, ™ “Quod sit Corpus et Sanguis Christi; 
quze a fidelibus vere et re ips (sive realiter) in 8. Coena 
Domini recipiuntur.” Et in Apologia pro eadem Ecclesia, 
quam przestantissimus presul Joh. Juellus, episcopus Saris- 
buriensis", publicavit, °diserte pronuntiatur, “in S. Coena 
credentibus vere exhiberi Corpus et Sanguinem Domini, 
Carnem Filii Dei vivificantem animas nostras, cibum superne 
venientem, immortalitatis alimoniam, gratiam, veritatem, 
vitam; eamque communionem esse Corporis et Sanguinis 
Christi, ...... ut nos in Illo maneamus, et Ile in nobis; 


Ad hee verba, 
similiter  cali- 
cem accipit. 


1 Tbidem. 

™ Catechismus, una cum Liturgia 
editus. 

Ὁ [Nostrorum omnium (manu Cosini 
emendat. Reformate Ecclesiae Angli- 
canz) nomine.—MS. Dunelm. ] 

° Apologia Ecclesiz Anglican. 


[Vid. Joan, Juelli Op. Theol., ed. Co- 
melin. 1600. tom, i., Apol. p. 8.— 
Nec dubitamus etiam cum iisdem 


(patribus catholicis) dicere, esse illa 
visibilia quaedam verba signacula jus- 
titie, symbola grati@: diserteque pro- 
nuntiamus, in Ccoena credentibus, &c. ] 





CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ#. 


21 


......utque pro certissimo habeamus, id esse animis nos- 
tris alendis Corpus et Sanguinem Christi, quod alendis cor- 


poribus est panis et vinum.” 


IV. Paulo ante hance conscriptam Apologiam, prodierat 
‘Diallacticon’ celeberrimi viri Johannis Poineti, episcopi 
Wintoniensis, ‘de veritate, natura, atque substantid Corporis 
et Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistié ;—quod non alio consilio 
edidit, quam ut fidem et doctrinam Ecclesiz Anglicanee illus- 
traret. Et primo ostendit, ? Eucharistiam non solum figuram 
esse Corporis Domini, sed etiam ipsam “ veritatem,”—“ na- 
turam, atque substantiam,”—in se comprehendere ; idcirco, 
“nee has voces nature et substantie fugiendas esse; vete- 


P [ Vid. Diallact. viri boni et literati 
de veritate, natura, atque substantia, 
Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Eucha- 
ristia ; ed. 4to. Lond. 1688. pp., 3, 13. 
14, 23, 33, 49, 72; item, ed. 8vo, 
ἘΠῚ 1576. pp. 8, 24, 25, 37, 38, 52, 73, 
74, 107.—Primum ostendam veritatem 
Corporis Christi in Eucharistia dari 
fidelibus, nec has voces, naturam atque 
substantiam, fugiendas esse: sed vete- 
res, de hoc sacramento disserentes, ita 
locutos fuisse. . . . 

Possunt et alia multa loca in me- 
dium afferri ex Patribus sumpta, que 
cum supra recitatis conveniunt ; ex qui- 
bus omnibus facile pessumus videre, 
quz fuerit eorum omnium, quantum 
attinet ad hane partem divisionis nos- 
tre, sententia, nimirum Eucharistiam 
non solum figuram esse Dominici Cor- 
poris, sed etiam veritatem ejusdem, na- 
turam, atque substantiam, in se com- 
prehendere ; nam his vocibus, et earum 
conjugatis, vere, naturaliter, et substan- 
tialiter, sepe usos eos esse, nemini du- 
bium esse potest, qui eorum scripta le- 
ΣΦ Γ᾿ τσ ΞΙ ιερο οἰ ων Ma ke see ss 
Deinde, utrum voces illez, veritas, 
natura, substantia, communi more in 
hoc negotio debeant intelligi, an pecu- 
liari,et sacramentis magis accommodata, 
ratione: breviter, utrum homonymia 
vocum istarum aliqua subsit, an non. 
Neque enim observandum est solum, 
quibus verbis olim patres locuti sunt, 
sed quid etiam sibi volebant ita lo- 
quentes. λα νι ξκ some et Late s 
Ubi de Corpore Christi proprie dicto 
loquitur Augustinus, negat simpliciter 
hic adesse, et recusat talem presentiam 
Corporis: quum vero loquitur de Sa- 
cramento, vere quidem adesse Corpus 


asserit, et verain presentiam Corporis, 
non autem proprie, sed, quemadmodum 
ipse nos admonet, secundum majesta- 
tem, secundum ineffabilem et invisibi- 
lem gratiam; qua de re mox plenius 
dicemus. Satis igitur constat, aliter 
intelligendum Christi Corpus in sacra- 
mento, aliter quod in aliquo loco ceeli 
esse necessarium est, propter veri Cor- 
poris, ut ipse ait, modum. tie 
Sic enim scribit (Cyrillus) libro iv. 
in Joannem, capite 14. . . . Perspicis, 
quia sine fide quzrentibus mysterii 
modum nequaquam explanavit: cre- 
dentibus autem non querentibus expo- 
ἘΌΝ, seeders dpe se see Pa ee oak setter fs 
Cum igitur communis ratio sit et 
natura Carnis Christi cum carne reli- 
quorum hominum, ut ait Lombardus, 
talis autem caro, ut asserit Aquinas, in 
sacramentum non cadit, conficitur ip- 
sorum testimonio hee duo carnis genera 
multum discrepare. Quod ut magis 
appareat, et memoria reponatur, non 
inutile fore putavi, ex his que supra 
memoravimus, διάκρισιν quandam per 
collationem conjungere. 

Corpus Christi proprium habet for- 
mam humani corporis naturalem : Cor- 
pus myslicum non habet. &e.. . . 
In hae igitur operis hujus tertia 
parte, volui ostendere, et fecisse me 
puto, quo modo Christus Dominus 
noster prasens esse credendus est in 
Coene sacre administratione, juxta 
communem et consentientem veterum 
patrum interpretationem. Primum do- 
cui, de Christi Carne edenda, spiritua- 
lem ab illis intelligentiam requiri, et 
carnalem omnem cogitationem abne- 
gari; &c.—Et passim. } 


CLARE? 
RE 





22 DE SACRiS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRESENTIA 


CAP. res enim, de hoc sacramento disserentes, ita loquutos fuisse.” 





Secundo queerit, “an voces illw, veritas, natura, et substan- 
tia, communi more in hoc mysterio a veteribus intellige- 
bantur, an peculiari et sacramentis magis accommodata rati- 
one ?—Neque enim observandum esse solum, quibus verbis 
olim patres usi sint, sed quid istis significare ac docere volu- 
erint.” Et, licet discrimen ipse cum patribus agnoscat, inter 
Corpus Christi formam humani corporis naturalem habens, 
et quod in sacramento est Corpus mysticum, maluit tamen 
diserimen illud ‘ad modum preesentiz et exhibitionis, quam 
ad ipsam rem subjectam, hoc est, Corpus Christi verum4,’ ac- 
commodari; quum certissimum sit, non aliud Corpus in sacra- 
mento fidelibus dari, nisi quod a Christo pro fidelium salute 
in mortem traditum fuit. Tertio denique, “spiritualem hic 
intelligentiam (juxta communem et consentientem veterum 
patrum interpretationem) requir,” statuit, “et carnalem 
omnem cogitationem excludi.” 

V. Poineto successerunt in eadem sede Wintoniensi re- 
verendissimi D.D. T. Bilsonus et L. Andreas, utrique viri 
undequaque doctissimi, et antique Fidei episcopi; qui, scriptis 
suis in lucem editis, doctrinam et fidem Ecclesiz Anglicanze, 
cum Sacre Scripture, tum veterum patrum theologiz, con- 
sonam per omnia clarissime demonstrarunt. Et, quod ad 
hoe mysterium attinet, agit quidem ile ‘in Responsione ad 


shall need no long discourse to prove, 


4 [In MS. Dunelm. ‘verum’ manu 
that these Catholic fathers teach in the 


priori, ‘proprium ac naturale’ posteriori, 


ab ipso Cosino seriptum est. | 

* T. Bilsoni Resp. ad Apol.Card. Ala- 
ni, lib. 4. { Vid. ‘‘ The true difference be- 
tween Christian subjection and un- 
christian rebellion, by Thomas Bil- 
son, Warden of Winchester ;’’ ed. 8vo. 
Lond. 1586. par. iv. p. 546,—Phi- 
lander. Yet by this place (Dionys. 
Eccl. Hierarch., cap. 3.) you see, 
Christ is covered with the forms of 
bread and wine, as with garments; and 
that is word for word our opinion.— 
Theophilus. Add συμβολικῷς figura- 
tively, as your author doth. . .. For we 
confess that Christ worketh in us, and 
presenteth Himself unto us, in these 
mysteries, as it were in certain veils 
and coverings, which mystically by 
way of signification and spiritual ope- 
ration contain and clothe His grace 
and truth.— 

Vid. etiam p. 625.—Theoph. ... There 


Lord’s Supper a spiritual kind of eating 
the flesh of Christ by faith and under- 
standing, as we dos” ὃ. sane 
(p. 626.) Dheophiya ema Next, you 
confess that the mortal and sinful bo- 
dies of men may not be substantially 
nourished with the glorious and immor- 
tal Fiesh of Christ : and eating is alto- 
gether in vain, (even of the Flesh 
of Christ Itself,) without nourishing : 
and all the fathers, with one consent, 
teach this to be the end of eating the 
Flesh of Christ, that we should be 
thereby nourished to life eternal, Why 
then strive you for a corporal eating, 
where yourselves dare not defend any 
corporal nourishing ? Why distract you 
eating from nourishing, by referring 
them, one to the body, and the other 
to the soul, which the fathers always 
joined and applied to one and the self- 
same partofman. . .. σις . 





CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI®. 23 


Apologiam Cardinalis Alani; fic vero’ in Responsione ad 
Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini; ubi verba reperiuntur 
lectu apprime digna, qué subjicio :—“ Dixit Christus, ‘ Hoc 
est Corpus Meum,’ |[non, Hoc modo hoc est Corpus Meum:’] 
nobis autem vobiscum de odjecto convenit, de modo lis 
Geese... s Fide firma tenemus, quod (Cor- 
PuseObhristi) sir. τὴν τος ον de modo, quo fiat ut sit, 
.... . nullibi (in Evangelio) verbum est; et, quia verbum 
nullum, merito a Fide procul ablegamus: inter scita schole 
fortasse, inter Fidei articulos non ponimus. Quod dixisse 
olim fertur Durandus, neutiquam nobis displicet: ‘ Verbum 
audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, presentiam 
credimus :—presentiam credimus (nec minus quam vos) 
veram. De modo presentiz nihil temere definimus ;—addo, 
nec anxie inquirimus; non magis quam, in Baptismo nostro, 
quomodo nos abluat Sanguis Christi; non magis quam, in 
Christi Incarnatione, quomodo nature Divine humana [in 


eandem hypostasin] uniatur. 


quidem ipsa Eucharistia mysterium est; 
quum est debet igne absumi;’ 


Inter mysteria ducimus: et 
cujus ‘quod reli- 
id est, (ut eleganter inprimis 


patres,) fide adorari, non ratione discuti.” 
VI. Similia habent Is. Casaubonus‘, in epistola nomine 


Rursus, p. 630.—Theoph.. . . 

. For, as we doubt not, that Chest; is 
always present on the Table, in truth, 
grace, virtue, and effect, if we open the 
eyes of our faith to behold Him, and 
[the] mouth of-our spirits to receive 
Him : so the local and corporal hiding 
of His human substance under the 
shews of bread and wine was never 
taught by any Catholic father, or 
council. 

Rursus, p. 631.—Theoph. God for- 
bid we should deny that the Flesh and 
Blood of Christ are truly present, and 
truly received of the faithful, at the 
Lord’s Table. It is the doctrine that 
we teach others, and comfort ourselves 
with. } 

s L. And. Resp. ad Apolog. Card. 
Bellarm., c.i. p. 11. [ed. 8vo. Lond. 
1610.—Nam, (quod Cardinalem non 
latet, nisi volentem et ultro,) dixit 
Christus, ‘Hoc est Corpus Meum?’ 
non, ‘ Hoc modo hoc est Corpus Meum.’ 
Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto con~ 
venit: de modo lis omnis est. De‘ Hoc 
est,’ fide firma tenemus quod sit: de 


‘ 


‘hoe modo est,’ (nempe, transubstan- 
tiato in Corpus pane,) de modo quo fiat, 
ut sit per, sive in, sive con, sive sub, 
sive trans, nullum inibi verbum est. 
Et, quia verbum nullum, merito a fide 
ablegamus procul: inter scita schole 
fortasse; inter Fidei articulos non po- 
nimus. Quod dixisse olim fertur Du- 
randus, (Neand. Synops. Chron., p. 
203,) neutiquam nobis displicet: ‘ Ver- 
bum audimus, motum sentimus, mo- 
dum nescimus, presentiam credimus.’ 
Presentiam (inquam) credimus, nec 
minus quam vos, veram. De modo 
presentiz nil temere definimus: addo, 
Nee anxie inquirimus; non magis 
quam, in Baptismo nostro, quomodo 
abluat nos Sanguis Christi: non magis 
quam, in Christi Incarnatione, quo- 
modo nature Divine humana in ean- 
dem hypostasin uniatur. Inter mys- 
teria ducimus, (et quidem mysterium 
est Eucharistia ipsa,) cujus quod re- 
liquum est debet igne absumi; id est, 
ut eleganter imprimis Patres, fide ado- 
rari, non ratione discuti. | 


ε Casaub. Ep. ad Card. Perron. 


CAP. 
II. 


[ Gen. xii. 
10.] 


CAGE: 
ΠῚ 


24 


DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRASENTIA 


serenissimi regis Jacobi scripta ad Card. Perronium; et 
Hookerus", Polit. Eccles., lib. v.; Joh. episcopus Roffensis*, 
de Potestate Pap ; R. Montacutius’, episcopus Norwieensis, 


[ Vid. Is. Casaub. Ep. 838, ed. Rote- 
rodam. 1709. tom. i. pp. 499—401.— 
Ut redeamus in lineam, quatuor ἐν- 
στάσεις contra Liturgiam LEcclesize 
Anglicane allate sunt iste : 

1. In sacrosancta Eucharistia realem 
Christi preesentiam non credit. . : 

Hae pia moderatione si Rex et Ec- 
clesia Anglicana in sacrosancto Eu- 
charistiz mysterio utuntur, que, obse- 
cro, invidia est? Legimus in Evangeliis, 
Dominum nostrum, cum hoe sacra- 
mentum instituebat, panem sumpsisse 
et dixisse: ‘Hoc est Corpus Meum:’ 
quomodo panis Corpus Suum esset, ne 
verbulo quidem uno explicuisse Chris- 
tum legimus. Quod legit Ecclesia 
Anglicana, hoe pie credit: quod non 
legit, pari pietate non inquirit. Mys- 
terium istud magnum esse, humano 
ingenio incomprehensibile, ac multo 
magis inenarrabile, fatetur et docet: 
de efficacia Illius sentit quam augus- 
tissime ! aM Wot Mig > ie Temes 
Istud (transubstantiationis dogma) non 
est rei veritatem pie credere, sed im- 
portuna curiositate modum decernere ; 
quod Rex cum Ecclesia sua nunquam 
est facturus, nunquam probaturus. .. . 
Hee fides Regis, hee fides Ecclesie 
Anglicane: qu, (ut brevi compendio 
rem omnem complectar,) in Coena Do- 
mini, realiter participem se fieri credit 
Corporis et Sanguinis Christi, ut patres 
Greci dicunt, et quod Bellarminus 
ipse fatetur, spiritualiter. Per fidem 
enim Christum apprehendunt et man- 
ducant ; creduntque nullum aliud man- 
ducationis genus ad salutem utile esse 
posse. Quod et omnes yestri semper 
fassi sunt. } 

ἃ Hook. [Eecl. ‘Polit.} lib. v. 8 67. 
{Of the Sacrament of the Body and 
Blood of Christ.— Works, ed. fol. 
Lond. 1723. pp. 2837—239.— 

The grace, which we have by the 
Holy Eucharist, doth not begin, but 
DOMAINE 5 τ Gg Ho eG 
As long as the days of our warfare last, 
during the time that we are both sub- 
ject to diminution and capable of aug- 
mentation in grace, the words of our 
Lord and Saviour Christ will remain 
forcible : ‘ Except ye eat the Flesh of 
the Son of man, and drink His Blood, 
ye have no life in you.’ Life being 
therefore proposed unto all men as 


their end, they which by Baptism have 
laid the foundation, and attained the 
first beginning of a new life, have here 
their nourishment and food prescribed 
for continuance of life in them. Such 
as will live the life of God, must eat 
the Flesh and drink the Blood of the 
Son of man: because this is a part of 
that diet, which if we want we cannot 
live. . : : : : 4 

Shall I wish that men would more 
give themselves to meditate with silence 
what we have by the sacrament, and 
less to dispute of the manner how? ... 
They (the disciples) had learned be- 
fore, that His Flesh and Blood are the 
true eause of eternal life: that this they 
are, not by the bare force of their own 
substance, but through the dignity and 
worth of His Person, which offered 
them up by way of sacrifice for the 
life of the whole world, and doth make 
them still effectual thereunto: finally, 
that to us they are life in particular, 
by being particularly received. |» 

x Epise. Roff. de Pot. Pape, pref. 
ad lect. [scil. Joan. Buckeridg. lib. de 
Potestate Papz in rebus tempéral. 
&ec., adv. Card. Bellarm., ed. Lond. 
1614. {Ad Lectorem.—Bernardi sen- 
tentia est, ‘Quod videlicet usque hodie 
eadem Caro nobis, sed spiritualiter, uti- 
que non carnaliter, exhibetur.’ Huic 
consona est per omnia doctrina Eccle- 
sie Anglicane ; que Corpus et San- 
guinem Christi in Coena Domini vere 
et realiter exhiberi, et fide recipi, as- 
serit; modum autem spiritualem (et pro- 
inde ineffabilem et incognitum) tradit. 
—Et passim. } 

Y Montacutius, in Antidiatrib. xiii. 
[ Vid. Rich. Mont. Antidiatrib. ad pri- 
orem partem Diatribarum J. Ces. Bu- 
lengeri, adv. Exercitat. Is. Casauboni ; 
ed. Officin. Hulsian. 1625. p. 143.— 
‘Caro Mea vere cibus est,’ &e.—Scrip- 
tura ita loquitur; nec negat, vel abit 
aliorsum exercitator: vel si uspiam 
abierit ab istis verbis, quod non facile 
credo, nos tamen scias omnes et sin- 
gulos illis verbis mordicus adherere.... 
Christi dictum credimus: obviis ulnis 
amplectimur, et pectoribus. Non dixit : 
Hoc modo hoc est Corpus Meum; sive 
trans, sive sub, sive con. Novum est 
dogma, et nuper natum, &Xc. } 


CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 


25 


in Antidiatribis contra Bulingerum; Jacobus’ primas Ar- 
machanus, in Resp. ad Jesuit. Hibernum; Franciscus? epi- 


2 Jacob. Armach. in respons: ad 
Jes. Hib., cap. De Reali Presentia. 
[ Vid. ‘ Answer toa Challenge made by 
a Jesuit in Ireland; &c. by James 
Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, and 
Primate of Ireland,’ § 3. ed. 4to. Lon- 
don, 1631. pp. 45, 47, 61.—How far 
the real presence of the Body of Christ 
in the sacrament is allowed or disal- 
lowed by us, I have at large declared 
in another place. The sum is this: 
that, in the receiving of the blessed 
sacrament, we are to distinguish be- 
tween the outward and the inward ac- 
tion of the communicant. In the out- 
ward, with our bodily mouth, we re- 
ceive really the visible elements of 
bread and wine: in the inward, we do 
by faith really receive the Body and 
Blood of our Lord; that is to say, we 
are truly and indeed made partakers 
of Christ crucified to the spiritual 
strengthening of our inward man. . .. 
We willingly indeed do acknowledge, 
that that which is inwardly presented in 
the Lord’s Supper, and spiritually re- 
ceived by the soul of the faithful, is 
that very thing which is treated of in the 
sixth of [S.] John: but we deny that 
it was our Saviour’s intention, in this 
place, to speak of that which is exter- 
nally delivered “in the sacrament, and 
orally received by the communicant.— 
Vid. etiam Ussher’s Sermon preached 
before the Commons’ House of Parliament, 
Feb. 18. 1620.(2nd. ed. 4to. Lond. 1631.) 
pp- 13, 16, 18, 19.—We are in the first 
place to consider, that a sacrament, 
taken in its full extent, comprehendeth 
two things in it; that which is owtward 
and visible, which the Schools call pro- 
- perly sacramentum, (in a more strict 
acception of the word;) and that which 
is inward and invisible, which they 
term rem sacramenti, (the principal 
thing exhibited in the sacrament.) 
Thus, in the Lord’s Supper, the ομέ- 
ward thing, which we see with our eyes, 
is bread and wine; the inward thing, 
which we apprehend by faith, is the 
Body and Blood of Christ. In the out- 
ward part of this mystical action, which 
reacheth to that which is sacramentuin 
only, we receive this Body and Blood 
but sacramentally: in the inward, 
which containeth rem, the thing it- 
self, in it, we receive them really. 
And consequently the presence of these, 
in the one, is relative and symbolical ; 


in the other, real and substantial..... Ε 
The bread and wine are not changed in 
substance from being the same with 
that which is served at ordinary tables: 
but, in respect of the sacred wse where- 
unto they are consecrated, such a change 
is made, that now they differ as much 
from common bread and wine, as 
heaven from earth. Neither are they 
to be accounted barely significative, but 
truly exhibitive also, of those heavenly 
things whereto they have relation: as 
being appointed by God to be a means 
of conveying the same unto us, and 
putting us inactual possession thereof... 
Now observe that, such as our hunger- 
ing is, such is our eating. But every 
one will confess, that the hunger here 
spoken of, is not corporal, but spiritual. 
Why then should any man dream here 
of a corporaleating? . .... .- 
If the manner of this-conjunction were 
carnal and corporal, it would be indeed 
necessary that the things conjoined 
should be admitted to be in the same 
place: but, it being altogether spiritual 
and supernatural, no local presence, no 
physical nor mathematical continuity 
or contiguity is any way requisite there- 
unto; &c.] 

4 [Vid. ‘ Reply to the Jesuit Fisher’s 
answer to certain questions propounded 
by His Most Gracious Majesty King 
James, by Francis White, &c., Dean 
of Carlisle,’ quest. xii. Concerning the 
Doctrine of the Real Presence, (ed. 
fol. Lond. 1624.) pp. 178, 179.—An- 
swer. The most learned Jesuits them- 
selves acknowledge, that Protestants 
believe the real presence of Christ’s 
Body and Blood in the Holy Eucha- 
rist; and our divines deliver their 
faith concerning the sacrament in this 
manner: [vid. Bilsoni Chr. Subject. 
par. iv. p. 631, ut supr. citat. p. 23.] 
“God forbid we should deny, that 
the Flesh and Blood of Christ are 
truly present, and truly received of the 
faithful, at the Lord’s Table: it is the 
doctrine we teach others, and comfort 
ourselves with.’’ The difference then be- 
tween papals and us is, not concerning 
the object, or matter received in and by 
the sacrameut, but touching the man- 
ner of presence, and the manner of 
receiving, &c.—Item : queest. xix. Con- 
cerning Transubstantiation, pp. 390, 
391, 595.—Concerning the sacred Eu- 
charist, he (‘His Sacred Majesty,’ K. 


CAF: 
i: 





ὥς : 


CA P. 


ΤΙΣ 


20 


DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRESENTIA 


scopus Eliensis, et Guliel. Laudus” archiep. Cantuar., Resp. 
ad Fischerum; Joh. Overallius® episcopus Norwicensis; alii- 


que quam plurimi: 


quia Fide prisc’ et catholicorum patrum 


doctrind, in Eeclesia Anglicana magna religione recepta, 
atque publicis regni legibus® confirmata, nequaquam disces- 


serunt. 


James) firmly believeth, that, in the 
holy use thereof, the very Body and 
Blood of Christ are truly, really, and 
effectually, presented and communi- 
cated to all faithful and worthy re- 
ceivers. But the Romish doctrine of 
Transubstantiation . .. he cannot 
believe, until demonstration be made, 
that this faith is taught by God’s ex- 
press word, and was anciently believed 
by the true Catholic Church...... 
When the substance of a point is re- 
vealed, and the distinct and particular 
manner concealed, it is sufficient to be- 
lieve the former, without searching into 
the latter. And not only some protes- 
tants, but the fathers also, and some 
learned pontificians, deliver thus much 
concerning the sacred Eucharist... . 
Real presence is taken two ways: First, 
for a true and effectual presence -of the 
Body and Blood of Christ, so as man, 
receiving the external signs by his 
natural parts, receiveth also the thing 
signified and presented by the action of 
his spiritual faculty, to wit, by an ope- 
Kative fasten. wise waves Soe 
His most excellent majesty, and all 
his orthodoxal people, believe real pre- 
sence according to the first accepta- 
tion, &c. ] 

Ὁ [ Vid. ‘ Relation of the Conference 
between William Laud, &c.,...... 
and Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, by the com- 
mand of King James, &c.; with an an- 
swer to such exceptions, as A. C. takes 
against it,’ &c. ; ed. fol. Lond. 1639. pp. 
292, 294.—Fourthly, whereas he im- 
poses upon the protestants the denial 
or doubting of the true and real presence 
of Christ in the Eucharist, he is a great 
deal more bold, than true, in that also. 
For understand them right, and they 
certainly neither deny nor doubt it. 
For, as for the Lutherans, (as they are 
commonly called,) their very opinion 
of consubstantiation makes it known to 
the world, that they neither deny nor 
doubt of His true and real presence 
there: and they are Protestants. And, 
for the Calvinists, if they might be 
rightly understood, they also maintain 
a most true and real presence, though 


they cannot permit their judgment to 
be transubstantiated: and they are Pro- 
testants too. . 

And, for the Church of England, nothing 
is more plain, than that it believes and 
teaches the true and real presence of 
Christ in the Eucharist, unless A. C. 
can make a Body No Body, and Blood 
wo Blood, (as perhaps he can by tran- 
substantiation,) as well as bread no 
bread, and wine NO wine: and the 
Church of England is Protestant too. 
So Protestants of all sorts maintain a 
true and real presence of Christ in the 
Eucharist, &e. j 

¢ In MS. brevi edendo. [ Quid sit hoe 
MS, latet. Nihil ad rem inventum est 
apud “ Bp. Overall’s Convocation Book, 
1690.”’ Inter notas autem suas manu- 
scriptas in libro Preeum Communium, 
A.D. 1619, Cosinus scripserat: ‘The 
Body and Blood of Christ, which are 
verily and indeed taken,’ &c..... 
Maldonate, De Sacr., p. 143, after a a 
long examination of the matter, con- 
cludes thus at last with us all, so the 
words be not taken exelusivé, as the Pu- 
ritans will take them: ‘Corpus Christi 
sumitur a nobis sacramentaliter, spiri- 
tualiter,et realiter, sed non corporaliter.’ 
And so I have heard my Lord Overall 
preach it an hundred times.—Vid. Gul. 
Nichol. Comm. in lib. Preeum Com- 
munium, Addit. Not. p. 60, ed. Lond. 
1710. ] 

ἃ Stat. 1°. Eliz. cap. 1° [ann 
Dom. 1558.—ap. Statutes at large, 
ed. 4to. Lond. 1786. tom. ii. p. 501.— 
An act to restore to the Crown the 
ancient Jurisdiction over the Estate 
Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, and abo- 
lishing all foreign Powers repugnant to 
the same.—Vid. etiam cap. 2. p. 506.— 
An act for the uniformity of Common 
Prayer and Service in the Church, and 
administration of the Sacraments. ]|—Et 
8°. Eliz. cap. 1°. [Ibid. ubi supr. p. 558, 
—An act declaring the making and con- 
secrating of the Archbishops and Bishops 
of this realm to be good, lawful, and per- 
fect. |—Et 13°. Eliz. cap. 1°. ὅτ. [ Vid. 
cap. 2. p. 572.—An act against the 
bringing in, and putting in execution, 





CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI&. 27 


VII. His autem non immerito annumerandus est cele- 
berrimus antistes Marcus Antonius de Dominis®*, archiepis- 
topus Spalatensis, vir in S. Scripturis et antiquorum patrum rere 
monumentis versatissimus; qui, relicta Italid (ubi tuto aut de Domi- 
quicto esse ei non licuit) hortatu sapientissimi viri, et intimi Sica 
ejus amici, Pauli Veneti, ad patrocinium serenissimi regis 
Jacobi, et Ecclesiam Anglicanam, velut ad tutissimum por- 
tum et asylum, sese contulit; eique Ecclesiz fideliter in 
omnibus religionis articulis adhesit. Sed, quum a rigidis 
quibusdam hominibus, passim et acriter contra ejus vitam 
ac mores injuste declamantibus, fatigatus, atque multis quo- 
tidie injuriis et conviciis lacessitus esset, tandem ad suos in 
Italiam, sub salvo conductu, redire statuit. Antequam vero 
abiret,—interrogatus a rege, per commissarios quosdam epis- 
copos, quid de religione et Ecclesid Anglicand (cui se per tot 
annos addixerat) pronuntiare ac dicere vellet, quum ad pon- 
tificem et Romanam curiam pervenisset,—mox, sumpto ca- 
Jamo, manu proprid scripsit que sequuntur, et hic lectu 
digna sunt; viz., “ Ego profitebor coram ipso papa, etiam cum 
discrimine vite meze, Ecclesiam Anglicanam esse veram et 
orthodoxam Ecclesiam Christi.” Et, quod promisit, preestitit. 
Quamvis enim, subito post ejus decessum ab Anglia, prodiit 
libellus sub ementito illius nomine®’, Belgicis typis excusus ; 
quo libri titulo multi boni viri, et quidem inter Anglos, de- 
cepti, contra eum tanquam apostatam et “alterum Ecebo- 
lium”” scripserunt; tamen, quum Romam ipse pervenerit, (ubi 
in edes pape Gregorii XV., olim ipsius condiscipuli, huma- 
nissime exceptus fuit,) adduci nunquam potuit, per Jesuitas 


iia 





ab ipso Hallo increpationes acceptas 


of Bulls, Writings, or Instruments, and 
rejicit; (dat. Londini, ex domo Savoy- 


other superstitious things, from the See 


of Rome.—Vid. etiam cap. 12. p. 586. 
—An act for the Ministers of the 
Church to be of sound Religion. ] 

€ [In MS. Dunelm. nomen tantum 
“ Ant. de Dominis” in margine manu 
Cosini scriptum est: hee autem que 
sequuntur desunt. | 

f (Vid. De pace religionis M. Ant. 
de Dominis -Spalatens. Archiepise. 
Epistolam ad venerabilem virum Jos. 
Hallum, Archipresbyterum Vigorn., 
in qua sui etiam ex Anglia proximi 
discessus Author rationem reddit. Que- 
Sita quoque regia sibi discessuro facta, 
Suasque ad ea responsiones refert ; et 


ensi, die 1. Mart. stylo vet. a Nativitate 
1622.) ed. Ves. Sequan. 1666, p. 57. 
—Sanus orthodoxusque, sive inter pon- 
tificios, sive inter vos, semper ful, sum, 
et (Deo me non deserente) semper ero. } 

£ [861]. Mare. Ant. de Dominis sui 
reditus ex Anglia concilium exponit. 
4to. Dilingx, 1623. } 

h [ Vid. librum cui titulus est ‘ Alter 
Eubolius M. Ant. de Dominis, plu- 
ribus Dominis inservire doctus,’ (per 
Jos. Hall, tuncepise. Vigorn.)4to. Lond. 
1624.—Et Conf. Soerat. Scholast. Hist. 
Eccl., lib. 111, cap. 13. ed. Cant. 1720. 
p. 188.] : 





CFAGES 


28 DE SAGRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRAMSENTIA 


et alios ad eum confiuentes, vel ut Tridentinorum nuperis de 
fide dogmatibus subscriberet, vel orthodoxos, quos in Angha 
atque Germania ediderat libros, revocaret, vel denique ut 
Anglican Ecclesiz (in cujus defensione constanter ad ex- 
tremum usque halitum perstitit) nuntium remitteret. Quin- 
imo', statim post Gregorii mortem, a Jesuitis et inquisi- 
toribus raptus est in carcerem intra castrum 8. Angeli, ubi 
male tractatus, et media fere consumptus, lethalem morbum 
contraxit, et intra paucos dies, non sine suspicione veneni, 
diem suum supremum obiit.  Postridie vero mortui ca- 
daver, ex inquisitorum sententif, infami flammé ad stipitem 
publice combustum fuit ; non aliam ob causam, quam quod 
idem archiepiscopus Ecclesiz Anglicans fidem ejurare, et 
nuperis quibusdam synodi Tridentine decretis, pro Fide Ca- 
tholicA habendis ac recipiendis, subscribere minime voluerit. 
Atque hzec, que forsan non adeo multis imnotescunt, in hune 
locum, dati occasione, eo inserenda duxi, ut inde clarius os- 
tenderem reverendissimum hunc antistitem, de universd Dei 
Ecclesia optime meritum, inter Anglicanz Ecclesiz scrip- 
tores (uti antea dicere coeperamus) merito recenseri. 
Audiamus igitur, quid ille, quum esset in Anglia, ubi 11- 
bros suos de Rep. Eccl. typis ac auspiciis regiis excudit, 
(lib. v. cap. vi. Num. 20) scripserit et docuerit*.— Per 
mille profecto annos” (ait) “Ecclesia Sancta Catholica, sobria 
divinorum mysteriorum cognitione contenta, et pie credidit, 
et tuto docuit, in Eucharistid legitime consecrata fideles 
Corpus et Sanguinem Christi agnoscere, et recipere, ac Man- 
ducare ; atque in 60 [illo] sacro pane, sacroque vino, Corpus 
et Sanguinem Christi [mirabiliter] exhiber1; modum vero 
particularem, quo Christi Corpus et Sanguis im sacris hisce 


i{ Vid. ‘A relation sent from Rome, 
of the process, sentence, and execu- 
tion done upon the body, picture, 
and books, of Mareus Antonius de Do- 
minis, archbishop of Spalato, after his 
death; ap. ‘first collection of Lord 
Somers’s T'racts;’ ed. 4to. Lond. 1748. 


80.—Secunda difficultas principalis: 
An jer consécrationem Eucharistiz 
realiter et substantialiter mutetur pa- 
nis in Corpus, et vinum in Sanguinem 
Christizhe et, ΕΣ 
Per mille profecto annos, ὅσ. . . . 
Utinam perniciosa curiositas ad inqui- 


vol. iv. p. 575.—Vid. etiam Fuller’s 
Church- History of Britain, Book x. p. 
98. ed. fol. Lond. 1655. ] 

Kk [Mare. Anton. de Dominis, de 
Republ. Ecclesiastica, lib. v. cap. vi- 
§ 20; ed. Lond. 1620. tom. ii. pp. 79, 


rendum ipsum modum non accessisset, 
et nostra materialitas Corpus illud et 
Sanguinem materialiter non intellexis- 
set, sed spiritualiter, juxta illud Christi 
documentum. } 





CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 29 


mysteriis, sive [et] sacramentis, exhibetur, pie, humiliter, 


et religiose, ignorare voluit. 


Rem ipsam et effectum leta 


tenebat ; a modo inquirendo humilis et devota abstinebat.” 
Item: (num. 731.) “Vere [enim,] imo verissime, in Eu- 
charistii exhibetur [ipsum] verum et reale Corpus Christi ; 
—sed spiritualiter, non corporaliter: [sed ut antitypum, 
dixit postea (Cyrillus,) id est, figuratum, et repreesentatum, 
efficaciter tamen, per panem,” &c.| Rursus: (num. 169™.) 
“Tpsam veram naturam Christi Carnis, realem et substan- 
tialem, in sacrA communione nos recipere, omnes Evangelio 
credentes fatebuntur, non dubito.” . .. . ‘ Dicimus omnes’’ 
Corpus Christi “adesse, quoad rem et naturam ;”’—“ quoad 
modum vero (h. 6. carnaliter et corporaliter) Christum ad- 
esse negamus, pariter cum Bernardo, et omnibus patri- 
bus.” Et (in Append. ad Ambrosium, num. 7".) “Scio et ad- 
mitto, cum pane, manente pane, nobis verum et reale Christi 
Corpus exhiberi, non tamen corporaliter: in re consentio, a 


{in| modo dissentio. 


Itaque, etiamsi [terminus ultimus 


mutationis aque in baptismo sit gratia m animé et dona 
spiritualia,] ultimus [vero] terminus mutationis panis sit 
secum adducere in animas digne communicantium ipsum 
verum Christi Corpus, quod est substantia (sacramenti:) non 
tamen sequitur, ipsum panem amittere suam substantiam, et 


induere substantiam Corporis Christi,” &c. 


Hee, et alia 


multa hue facientia, et religioni tam Ecclesiz Anglicanze 


quam omnium aliorum protestantium 


consona, scripsit in 


ipso eodem capite vi. libri v. de Rep. Eccl., et in annexa 


post librum vi. Ostensione errorum 


Francisci Suarezil, 


Jesuitz famosissimi, qui calamum suum strinxerat contra 


Anglicane. 


! [Ibid., § xxiii. ubi supr., p. 162. ] 

™ [Ibid., ὃ clxix. ubi supr., p. 254.— 
Respuit (Bellarminus) hune loquendi 
modum optimum (Bernardi:) nam ti- 
met periculum, ne trahatur ab adver- 
sariis non tam ad modum, quam ad ip- 
sam naturam significandam, Ecquod, 
queso, periculum? Ipsam veram na- 
turam Christi carnis, realem et substan- 
tialem, in sacra communione nos reci- 
pere, omnes Evangelio credentes fate- 
DUNE, ΠΟΠ ΘΕ ΒΕ ΡΟ τ τ alee, στ κὸν απ 
Cur igitur admittit (Bellarm.) modum 





‘regem Jacobum, et errores (scilicet, quos vocat) Ecclesize 
Quam liquido probat archiepiscopus, in ejus- 


esse spiritualem,non carnalem: deinde, 
earnalem presentiam requirit, etiam 
quoad modum? Dicamus omnes in 
Eucharistia carnalem et corporalem 
presentiam adesse quoad rem et na- 
turam: negemus etiam pariter omnes, 
cum Bernardo et omnibus _patribus, 
quoad modum carnaliter et corporaliter 
Christum non adesse, sed spiritualiter : 
et sic jam nulla erit controvyersia, sed 
summa consensio. } 

4 [Ibid., Append., § vii. ubi supr., p. 
172. ] 


CA Fe 
11. 


CAP: 
ΤΙΣ 


Germani- 
carum Ec- 
clesiarum 
Confessio 
Augus- 
tana. 


30 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRAESENTIA 


dem libri cap. 2.° cui titulum posuit: “ Articulos, pro quibus 
pontificii contra reformatos pugnant, ad Fidem Catholicam 
non spectare ;’—(veluti, transubstantiationem, &c.) 

VIII. Que vero Germanorum Protestantium sit sententia 
et fides, liquet imprimis ex Augustandi Confessione, a prin- 
cipibus imperii et viris maximis Carolo V. oblata. Docent 
enim?, quod “non solum panis et vinum, sed etiam ipsum 
Corpus et ipse Sanguis Christi, vescentibus in Coené Domini 
vere exhibeantur ;” sive (ut in alia editione reperitur) quod 
“ Corpus et Sanguis Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur 
vescentibus in Coeni Domini; improbantque secus docentes.” 
Docent etiam‘, “ita utendum esse sacramentis, ut accedat 
fides credens promissionibus, que, per sacramenta exhi- 
bentur et ostenduntur.”’ Ubi tamen fides non facit res pree- 
sentes, que promittuntur; (fides enim, ut constat, magis 
proprie dicitur accipere et apprehendere, quam vel polliceri, 
vel preestare :) sed verbum Dei, et promissio cui fides nostra 
innititur (non vero fides hominum) preesentia reddit, que 
promittit: quaemadmodum, inter reformatos et pontificios ali- 
quot, consensum est "in Collatione Sangermani habita. Male 


© [Vid. Ostens. errorum P. Francisci 
Suarez, cap. ii. ὃ 2.—De Republ. Kccel., 
tom. ii. p. 906.—Corporalem przsen- 
tiam ante omnia urget Suarez: (De- 
fens. Fid. Cath. lib. ii.) et, quia illam 
expresse disertis verbis non negavit 
rex, puduisse eum infamiz arbitra- 
tur, quia id jamdiu pro heresi dam- 
natum erat. Non puduit regem adora- 
tionem reprehendere ; et puduit tamen 
negare corporalem presentiam? Ne- 
gare adorationem panis profecto est 
etiam consequenter negare corporalem 
presentiam Christi sub pane, seu sub 
speciebus panis. &c. ] 

P (Conf. MS. Dunelm. in quo prox- 
ima verba sic leguntur :—‘‘ Docent 
enim, quod cum pane et vino vere ex- 
hibeantur Corpus et Sanguis Christi 
vescentibus in coenaé Domini.’’—Vid. 
Confess. Fidei, Imp. Carolo V. exhi- 
bit. in Comitiis Auguste, ann. 1530. 
art. x.; ap. Melancthon. Op. (ed. Wit- 
teberg. 1562.) tom. i. fol. 30.—In Coena 
Domini docent, quod Corpus et San- 
guis Christi vere adsint, et distribuan- 
tur, vescentibus in Coena Domini; et 
improbant secus docentes.—Et conf. 
art. x. ap. eosdem Articulos copiosius 
et explicatius declarat. Wormatiz, ann. 
1540, ubi supr. fol, 41.—De Cena 


Domini docent, quod cum pane et vino 
vere exhibeantur Corpus et Sanguis 
Christi vescentibus in Coena Domini. } 

« [Vid. Confess. Fid. exhib. in Co- 
mit. August. ann. 1530. art. xiii., ubi 
supr., fol. 30.—Vid. etiam fol. 46-48.] 

τ Collat. Sangermani, 1561. [Vid. 
Comment. de Statu Religionis et Rei- 
publicz in Regno Galli, regibus Hen- 
rico II., Francisco II., et Carolo IX. 
(ed. 8vo. 5.1. 1571.) lib. iii. pp. 339— 
342. ‘Articuli inter pontificiorum 
et Ecclesiarum delegatos unanimiter 
conclusi, in materia de Ccena Domini.’ 
—Tandem in hune articulum utrarum- 
que partium delegati consenseruat : 
‘Quatenus fides res promissas przsentes 
facit, et vere recipit Corpus et San- 
guinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, 
virtute Spirittis Sancti; hac ratione fa- 
temur presentiam Corporis et San- 
guinis Ipsius in sancta Coena: in qua 
nobis oftert, donat, et vere exhibit, sub- 
stantiam Sui Corporis et Sanguinis, op- 
eratione Spirittis Sancti: in quo reci- 
pimus et manducamus spiritualiter, et 
per fidem, illud Corpus pro nobis mor- 
tuum, ut simus ossa de Ossibus Ejus, 
caro de Carne Ejus, et eo vivificemur, 
et percipiamus quzcunque faciunt ad 
nostram salutem.’ 


CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI#, 31 


CAP: 


enim a multis Romanensibus nobis objicitur, quasi credere- 
Il. 


mus hanc Christi preesentiam et communicationem in sacra- 
mento per nudam fidem tantum effici. 

IX. Saxonica Confessio Fidei, ab aliis Ecclestis comprobata, 
non alia est quam queedam repetitio Confessionis Augustane. 
In δὰ docentur homines’, “ Sacramenta esse actiones divi- 
nitus institutas ;” et, quamvis tenendum est “ extra usum in- 
stitutum res ipsas non habere rationem sacramenti,” ... . 
‘in usu tamen instituto vere et substantialiter in hac commu- 
nione adesse Christum, et vere exhiberi sumentibus Ejus 
Corpus et Sanguinem ; Christumque testari, quod sit in eis, 
...... sicut et Hilarius! inquit: ‘ Hee accepta et hausta's, Hijlar.’ 
faciunt, ut et nos in Christo, et Christus in nobis sit.’ ” aon 2 

X. Similis est Confessio Wittembergica, que Tridentinz Confessio 
synodo proposita fuit, anno Domini 1552. In 1Π8ἃ enim de eae 
EKucharistiz sacramento docetur, quodt “verum Corpus 
Christi et verus Sanguis Ejus in eddem distribuantur ;” refu- 
tantque eos qui dicunt, “ panem et vinum Eucharistiz esse 
tantum absentis Corporis et Sanguinis Christi signa.” 

XI. Accedat et Bohemica Confessio (eorum, quos quidam, 
rerum ignari, Picardos et Waldenses per contemptum vocant) 
a baronibus, et aliis nobilibus regni Bohemiz, serenissimo 





Saxonica 
Confessio, 


Confessio 
Boheinica. 


Prezlatorum delegati illum articulum 
suorum collegio indicarunt, qui ab illis 
minime fuit omnino approbatus. Ita- 
que postridie alius ministris illorum 
nomine exhibitus fuit, in quo aliquid 
fuit immutatum: quod enim primus 
articulus Fidei, secundus Verbo attri- 
buebat. Illum articulum propter am- 
biguitatem, ne graviores errores pa- 
reret, noluerunt recipere ministri. Sed, 
ne in verbis certamen esse videretur, 
omnium delegatorum consensu illum 
in hee verba conceperunt: ‘ Confite- 
mur Jesum Christum in Ccena nobis 
offerre, dare, et vere exhibere, substan- 
tiam Sui Corporis et Sanguinis opera- 
tione Spiritus Sancti: et nos recipere 
et'edere spiritualiter et per fidem verum 
illud Corpus, quod pro nobis mortuum 
est, ut simus ossa de Ossibus Ejus, caro 
de Carne Ejus: ad hoc, ut eo vivifice- 
mur, et percipiamus quzcunque fa- 
ciunt ad nostram salutem. Et, quo- 
niam fides, innixa verbo Dei, res per- 
ceptas presentes facit, per istam vero 
fidem recipimus vere et efficaciter ve- 


rum et naturale Corpus et Sanguinem 
Jesu Christi, virtute Spiritus Sancti. 
Hoe respectu fatemur presentiam Cor- 
poris et Sanguinis [psius in Ccena.’ 

His ita constitutis, utriusque partis 
delegati rem ad suos deferunt, ut libere 
utreeque partes quid sentirent statu- 
erent. Primaigitur fronte prelatorum 
plerique illum articulum ita conceptum 
recipiebant: verum, re cum Sorbo- 
nicis communicata, illum postea com- 
muni sententia repudiarunt.. . . . 
. . . Itaque ministri, communicandi ra- 
tione oblata, hanc illius articuli explica- 
tionem ad antistitum delegatos misere : 

‘ Affrmamus nullam locorum distan- 
tiam impedire posse communicationem, 
quam habemus cum Christi Corpore et 
Sanguine; quoniam Ccena Domini est 
res ceelestis:’ &c. | 

s Art. 15. [ Vid. Confess. Doctrine 
Saxon. Eccl. Synodo Tridentine oblat. 
ann. 1551. cap. De Coena Dom. ed. 8vo. 
5.1. 1552. p. 69.) 

Ὁ In Prefat. [eap. de Euch, ; ed. 8yo. 
Tubing. 5. a. ] 





CrACR: 
I. 


Consensus 
Polonicus. 


DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRESENTIA 


regi Ferdinando oblata, scriptisque Lutheri ac Melancthonis, 
atque etiam inclyte academiz Wittembergensis suffragio, 
comprobata; qua" “corde credendum ac ore confitendum” 
docet, “ panem Cosnie Dominice verum Christi Corpus esse, 
quod pro nobis traditum est, calicemque verum Sanguinem 
Ejus, qui pro nobis fusus est; . . . . Christi autem verbis 
nemini licere, de suo, quidquam affingere, admiscere, aut de- 
trahere.” Quum quidam, vero, sacerdotes hanc illorum con- 
fessionem multis obtrectationibus onerarent, respondent, 
“Calumniatores se refellere nunquam non paratos esse, et 
indubitabili fide ac  firmissimis argumentis ostendere se, 
quales eos adversarii faciunt, nec unquam fuisse, nec esse, 
nec (Deo volente) futuros esse,” 

XII. Subjungo conciliationem articulorum de Coend Do- 
mini, et mutuum Consensum inter Ecclesias majoris et mino- 
ris Polonize, in synodo Sendomiriensi factum. “ Convenimus 
(inquiunt*) in sententid verborum Domini, . . ut illa orthodoxe 
intellecta sunt a patribus; . . atque (ut expressius clariusque 
loguamur). . . credimus et confitemur substantialem pre- 
sentiam Christi non significari duntaxat, sed vere in Coend Do- 
mini, rite [eo] vescentibus, repreesentari, distribui, et exhiberi 
Corpus et Sanguinem Domini; symbolis adjectis ipsi rei mi- 


u Art. 13. {De Coena Domini.— nomen objiciunt. Quidam enim eorum 


Vid. Confess. Fidei ac Religionis ba- 
ronum ac nobilium regni Bohemie, 
serenissimo ac invictissimo Ferdinando, 
Romanorum, Bohemize, &c., regi, 
Vienne Austriz, sub anno Domini 
1535, oblat.; ed. 8vo. Dordraci, 1617. 
fol. 65.—Item, et hie corde creden- 
dum ac ore confitendum docent, pa- 
nem Coene Dominice verum Corpus 
Christi esse, quod pro nobis traditum 
est; calicemque verum Sanguinem 
Ejus, qui pro nobis in remissionem 
peccatorum fusus est; ut Christus Do- 
minus aperte dicit: ‘Hoc est Corpus 
Meum: ’‘ Hic est Sanguis Meus,’ &c.... 
Docent etiam, quod his Christi verbis, 
quibus Ipse panem Corpus Suum, et 
vinum speciatim Sanguinem Suum 
esse propuntiat, nemo de suo quid- 
quam attingat, admisceat, aut detrahat ; 
sed simpliciter his Christi verbis, neque 
ad dexteram neque ad sinistram decli- 
mando τας... ΤΡ eee Lee 
Est autem duplex adversariorum ge- 
nus, qui nostratibus semper hzreticum 


confessioni, quam tamen candide ac 
sincere reddunt, nec itidem doctrine, 
cui etsi cum ipsis nihil conveniat, ab 
Scripturis tamen in ea nihil dissentit, 
non credentes, ferunt nostros multa, 
secus ac intus sentiant, verbis eloqui ; 
preterea etiam blasphemos esse in 
Sacramentum Corporis et Sanguinis 
Domini. At vetus hee sacerdotum 
ealumnia est, qua illi nostros Chris- 
tiano nomine apud vulgus_ spoliare 
conantur. Sed hance nostri jampridem 
refellerunt, ac nunquam non refellere 
parati sunt, et multorum indubitabili 
Fide, ac firmissimis argumentis, osten- 
derunt se nunquam, quales eos adver- 
sarii faciunt, fuisse, esse, nec Deo vo- 
lente futuros, &c. | 

* Statim post initium. [Vid, ὃ 2.— 
Cons. Polon., &c., primo Sendomiriz, 
ann. 1570, insynodo generalisancitum : 
et deinceps in aliis; ac demum Wlodis- 
laviensi generali synodo, ann. 1583, con- 
firmatum ; &c., ed. 8vo. Heidelburge, 
1605. p. 11. ] 





CHRISTI ΙΝ SACRAMENTO LUCHARISTIA. 


nime nudis, secundum sacramentorum naturam. 


99 


Ne vero 


diversitas formularum loquendi contentionem aliquam pariat, 
placuit . . . . mutuo consensu adscribere articulum Confes- 
sionis Saxonicarum Keclesiarum de (πὰ Domini, ad Triden- 
tinum consilium [anno Domini 1551] misse: quem etiam 


plum agnoscimus et recipimus.” 


Ideoque repetunt hujus 


articuli verba integra, paulo ante memorata. 

XIII. Erat aliquando in ed opinione Lutherus, quasi 
theologi Basilienses et Argentinenses nihil aliud in Coena 
Domini esse faterentur, preter panem et vinum; cui Bucerus’, 


y [Ea que sequuntur ex Historia 
Sacramentaria Rod. Hospiniani (scil. 
e part. alt. de Coena Domini, ad ann. 
1536, fol. 144, Ὁ, ed. Tiguri 1602.) de- 
sumpta sunt, verbis identidem paulum 
mutatis. Buceri narrationem, quem 
laudat Cosinus, visum est hic subji- 
cere: scil. Hist. de Concordia circa ne- 
gotium Eucharisticum, inter 1). Lu- 
therum et superioris Germanize Theo- 
logos, anno 1536, Witemberge inita; 
ap. Buceri Script. Anglican. (ed. Basil. 
1577.) pp. 651, 652.—Secundo, ..... 
responsum hoc dederunt: Se nimirum 
paratos esse viva voce ea revocare, que 
ostendi possent in publicis concionibus 
perperam et falso a se esse proposita ; 
seripto vero edito ea revocaturos, que 
similiter in scriptis publicis vel ipsi, 
vel alii in iis Ecclesiis quarum eandem 
nobiscum esse sententiam ipsis affirma- 
vimus, falsa proposuissent; quasi pa- 
nis tantum et vinum in Coena detur, et 
non etiam verus Christus : Hoc vero se 
omnes fassos esse, et adhuc fateri velle, 
quod in illa aliquando fuerint sententia, 
scripta D. Lutheri et suorum nimium 
sacramentis tribuere, crassioremque 
unionem Christi cum pane statuere, 
quam qualem S. Scriptura admittat : 
Hujus sententie causam fuisse eam, 
quod tropus omnis ab illis hactenus in 
verbis Coene negatus sit, et quod scrip- 
serint, intellectum verborum Christi 
hune esse: Hoe est Corpus Meum 
substantialiter et corporaliter, vel in 
pane adest corporaliter : SO 
Ex eo autem tempore quo intellexerint, 
ex posterioribus illorum scriptis, ipsos, 
nempe D. Lutherum ipsique addictos, 
naturalem unionem Corporis Dominici 
cum pane expresse negare, nec Chris- 
tum in panem localiter includere; .. . 
ex eo se ergo tempore libere hoc ipsum 
apud alios, tum in scriptis, tum in ser- 
monibus suis, professos, et in annum 


COSIN,. 


jam octavum usque diligentem adhi- 
buisse operam, ut 8111 quoque eadem 
sententia imbuerentur, Xe.:. . . - 
Locum enim in suis scriptis nullum re- 
periri, ubi in S. Coena nihil preter pa- 
nem et vinum esse docuerint. 

Tertio, : ita responderi 
visum est: Se non de omnibus lo- 
qui: Interea tamen sibi constare se 
ipsius, nempe Lutheri, et caterorum 
sententiam in iis locis non satis in- 
tellexisse, ubi tropum omnem negant, 
et corporalem manducationem Cor- 
poris Christi usque adeo vehemen- 
ter urgent: scire sese etiam D. Lu- 
therum nostrorum sententiam  simi- 
liter non satis assecutum, necdum ad- 
hue assequi in eo quod nobis objicit, 
nos veram presentiam Christi in S. 
Ceena negare: nullum enim inter nos, 
qui hic presentes adsumus, unquam 
id fecisse : quod si autem causa hee 
probe componatur, nos ipsi tali defen- 
sione posthac molestos non futuros. Li- 
benter quoque fatebimur errorem esse, 
si dicatur tantum panem et vinum in 
S. Coena exhiberi ; eamque sententiam, 
ut erroneam, acriter damnabimus.. .. 
Quarto: Quantum vero ad ipsum ne- 
gotium sacramentarium, sic respon- 
sum est: Suam et illorum omnium, 
qui in Ecclesiis liberarum et impe- 
rialium civitatum concionantur, (Eccle- 
siarum enim Helveticarum confes- 
sionem paulo post se exhibituros, ) fidem 
et doctrinam de hoc sacramento hene 
esse: Quod sentiant in eo, ex institu- 
tione et opere Domini, vere (prout 
verba Domini sonant) verum Suum 
Corpus, et verum Sanguinem, cum vi- 
sibilibus signis pane et vino exhiberi, 
dari, et sumi, prout hee antehac quo- 
que in publicis Ecclesiarum superioris 
Germaniz confessionibus, et in aliis 
scriptis, expresse professi sumus. .. . 
Ita omnes fatemur propter  sacra- 





CAPES 
Il. 


Confessio 
theologo- 
rum Ar- 
gentine et 
Basiliz. 





94. DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRESANTIA 


reliquorum omnium nomine, ingenue et aperte respondit: 
“ Tibenter se quidem, omuesque alios, hunc errorem damna- 
turos ; ipsos enim cum Helvetiis nunquam ita vel docuisse 
vel sensisse ; neque nominatim cuiquam, preter Anabaptistas, 
hune errorem tribuendum esse: se vero aliquando etiam in 
δὰ sententiA fuisse, quod scilicet Lutherus in suis scriptis mi- 
mium externis symbolis tribuerit, et crassiorem unionem 
Christi cum pane statuerit, quam qualem Scriptura admittat ; 
quasi Christus in pane adsit corporaliter, et in unam natura- 
lem cum pane substantiam uniatur; cujus etiam contactu, 
vel gustu, omnes (tam impli quam fideles) gratiz participes 
fierent : ipsorum porro fidem et doctrinam de hoc sacramento 


hance esse, quod sentiant in 60, ex institutione et opere Do- 


mini, vere (prout verba Illus sonant) verum Corpus et verum 
Sanguinem Suum, uni cum visibilibus signis pane et vino, ex- 
hiberi, dari, et sumi; et sic non solum Zuinglium et Cico- 
lampadium docuisse, sed ipsos quoque, in publicis Ecclesiarum 
superioris Germaniz confessionibus, allisque scriptis, con- 
fessos esse; dissidium vero magis esse de modo absentiz 


vel priesentiz, quam de ips’ preesentid vel absentid:” que 
mentalem unionem, que est inter pa- 
nem et Corpus Christi, dici posse 
(quod et S. Patres facere solent) ibi 
sumi Corpus Domini in manus ipsas, 
os, et stomachum; cum tamen proprie 
loquendo neque manus, os, vel stoma- 
chus, ad Corpus Domini pertingere 
possit: Verum, quia nostri homines 
semper aliquid crassius ex hoe lo- 
quendi genere colligere soleant, quam 


Multa et gravia nos preebituros sean- 
dala nostris Ecclesiis, si simpliciter di- 
ceremus, Impios zque participes fieri 
Corporis Domini, ac pios: ....... 
Quare cum D. Augustino nos affirmare: 
Allis, qui hae fide prediti non sunt, 
Corpus quidem Domini in Ceena eque 
offerri et exhiberi, ut et maxime fide- 
libus: eos vero Christum tantum sa- 
crainento tenus manducare; non enim 


ipsius D. Lutheri et S. Patrum sen- 
tentia patiatur, adeo nos hac loquendi 
formula uti non solere, sed ista loqui: 
Ibi cum pane et vino Corpus Domini 
vere exhiberi, divino quidem et ccelesti, 
sed tamen vero et substantiali modo: 
Hac declaratione nos conteutos esse, et 
diligenter nostros hortari ad manduca- 
tionem, qua veram fidem conjunctam 
habeat, quo fructus hujus sacramenti 
fiant participes : 

Quod ad manducationem impiorum 
diximus ; &c. . . . Si vero, que nos- 
tra sit de hae quzstione sententia, in- 
terrogemur, respondere nos solere: Im- 
pios illos, qui prorsus impii sunt, ita 
ut ipsis quoque verbis hujus sacra- 
menti fidem non adhibeant, nihil pre- 


Eum ita ut debebant, in eseam videlicet 
Vite, Teciplunt, σον (Rursus : 
pp- 654, 655.)—Hac recitatione et 
declaratione Buceri habita, de cujus- 
que fide D. Lutherus ordine scisci- 
tabatur ; ubi universi et singuli suo 
nomine confessi sumus nos prorsus 
idem in omnibus sentire et docere, 
prout hee a Bucero recitata et decla- 
rata sint; nec cuiquam apud nos con- 
cessum iri, ut doceat vel dicat tantum 
panem et vinum in S. Cena adesse : 
Imo, hane sententiam in quibusdam 
civitatibus inter blasphemias relatam, 
peenasque gravissimas in eos, qui hee 
proponant, constitutas esse; nosque 
omnes fideliter docere, veram Corpus 
et Sanguinem ibi offerri et sumi. ] 


Or 


CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA., 2.0 


quidem omnia Buceri socii, post eum, confirmirunt. Et 
simul addidit, “ Magistratiis in suis Ecclesiis severissimas 
poenas denuntiisse iis, qui negarent Corporis et Sanguinis 
Christi in 8. Coen’ presentiam.” Hance vero de sacramento 
Coenze sententiam, coram Landgravio Hassiz et Melancthone, 
comprobavit Bucerus’; qui fassus est, quod “ Corpus Christi 
vere et substantialiter a nobis accipiatur, quum sacramento 
utimur: item, quod panis et vinum sint signa exhibitiva, 
quibus datis et acceptis, simul Christi Corpus detur et exhi- 
beatur.” Quibus addidit, “ panem et Corpus uniri, non per 
substantiarum mixtionem, sed quatenus id datur cum sacra- 
mento quod sacramento promittitur, (hoc est, quia uno po- 
sito alind ponitur :) adeoque, quoniam utrinque in €o consen- 
tiatur, quod panis et vinum non mutentur, se sacramentalem 
ejusmodi conjunctionem statuere.” Lutherus, his intellectis?, 
suam quoque sententiam declaravit, et affirmavit: “ Non 
ullé se nature copulé Corpus et Sanguinem Christi unire 
cum pane et vino, et localiter includere ; neque sacramentis 
propriam tribuere virtutem, qua salutem ex se afferant ea 
sumentibus; sed sacramentalem solum unionem inter Corpus 
et panem Domini, interque Sanguinem et vinum, statuere ; 
tum etiam docere, confirmationem fidel (quam sacramentis 
tribuit) niti virtute, non qu ipsis inhereat externis rebus 
per se, verum que sit Christi, et dispensetur Ejus Spiritu 
per verba et symbola.” Denique ad hunc modum allocutus 
est, qui aderant, omnes: “ Si creditis, et docetis, in S. Coena 


2 {Immo potius ‘‘ comprobaverat,’’ 
et ‘fassus erat,’’ Bucerus: que enim 
hie a Cosino interposita sunt, ad Con- 
ventum alium, scil. Cassellanum, anno 
superiori (1535) habitum, referenda 
sunt.—Vid. Hospin. Hist. Sacram. ad 
ann. 1535, sect. de Cassellano Con- 
ventu, fol. 137. b. ] 

@ [ Scil. ea que Bucerus Witember- 
ge dixit, A.D. 1536.—Vid. Hospinian., 
ubi supra, fol. 144. b; et Buceri Hist. 
Concord., ubi supra, cujus verba sunt: 
His peractis, D., Lutherus cum suis, 
magistro videlicet Philippo, et D. Iona, 
et aliis duobus, secessit, et de his cum 
ipsis contulit. Ubi vero rursus conse- 
dimus, incepit 1). Lutherus sese gestu 
et verbis ostendere humanissimum, et 
in hune modum prefatus est: Vene- 


D 


randi domini et fratres, audivimus om- 
nium et singulorum vestrum responsa 
et confessiones; quod videlicet cre- 
datis et doceatis in ὃ. Coena verum 
Corpus et verum Sanguinem Domini 
exhiberi et sumi, et non panem et vi- 
num tantum: et quod exhibitio et per- 
ceptio hee vere fiat, et non imaginarie: 
offendimini autem tantum impiorum 
ratione, ita tamen ut fateamini in- 
dignos (ut ait Paulus) Corpus Domini 
sumere, ubi videlicet institutio et verba 
Domini non subyertuntur. De hisnon 
contendemus. Cum itaque ita se res 
habeat, probe inter nos convenit, vos- 
que agnoscimus et recipimus, (quantum 
ad hune articulum attinet,) ut fratres 
nostros in Domino, &e. j 


2 


~ 


C+ AC FE: 
ΤΕ 


Gallicana 
Confessio. 


1 | pro 

6 ibi ” 
legitur 

«ς ita ” 

2 [* quod 
nobis in 
Coena da- 
τ} | 


36 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRAHSENTIA 


verum Corpus et verum Sanguinem Domini exhiberi, dari, et 
sumi, et non panem et vinum tantum, et quod perceptio et 
exhibitio hee vere fiat, et non imaginarie, inter nos convenit, 
vosque agnoscimus et recipimus, ut caros nostros fratres in 
Domino.” Que omnia, in 2°. tomo operum Lutheri?, et in 
Scriptis Buceri Anglicanis, copiosissime recitantur. 

XIV. Subsequatur Confessio Gallicana; que, Lutetiz im 
synodo nationali constituta, Carolo IX. regi in colloquio 
Possiaceno exhibita fuit. Ha vero de hoc sacramento hee 
habet¢: “ Quamvis nunc” Christus “in ceelis sit, ibidem etiam 
mansurus, donec veniat mundum judicaturus, credimus ta- 
men Eum, arcand et incomprehensibili Spiritis Sui virtute, 
nos nutrire et vivificare Corporis et Sanguinis Sui substantia, 
per fidem apprehensi*. Dicimus autem, hoc spiritualiter 
fierl; non ut veritatis et efficaciz loco imaginationem aut 
cogitationem supponamus, sed potius quoniam hoc myste- 
rium nostre cum Christo coalitionis tam sublime est, ut 
omnes nostros sensus, totumque adeo ordinem nature, supe- 
ret: [denique, quoniam, cum sit divinum ac celeste, non 
nisi fide percipi et apprehendi potest.”] Item: “Credimus 
... [tam] in 8. Coena, [quam in Baptismo,] Deum nobis re- 
ipsa (id est, vere et efficaciter) donare quicquid 101 sacra- 
mentaliter figurat ; ac proinde cum signis conjungimus ve- 
ram possessionem ac fruitionem ejus rei, que ibi' nobis offer- 
tur: itaque ... panem illum et vinum illud, qu nobis dan- 
tur”, vere nobis fieri spirituale alimentum, quatenus videli- 
cet oculis nostris velut spectandum prebent Carnem Christi 
nostrum cibum esse, et Hjusdem Sanguinem nobis esse po- 
tum. Itaque fanaticos omues illos rejicimus, qui hec signa 


b [Hee non inventasunt apud opera _Islebiensis recitetur.’’ | 


Lutheri Latine edita. Vid. autem Seck- 
endorf. Hist. Lutheranismi, ad ann. 1536, 
sect. 15. ὃ xlvii., (ed. Francof. 1692. 
tom. ii. p. 129;) qui dicit: “ Ex parte 
Lutherana videnda sunt quz ex tomo 
ji. Islebiensi, tomo vi. Alt. fol. 1045 et 
seqq., exhibentur. Ex illis queedam La- 
tine vertit Hospinianus, ἃ. 1. fol. 145.” 
—Ipse dicit Hospinianus: (ubi sup. fol. 
145. a.) “Hane tractationem Concordiz 
breviter percurrimus, quod diligenter in 
Historia Martyrum Ludovici Rabi Ul- 
mensis Eeclesiz pastoris descripta ex- 
tet, et in secundo tomo operum Lutheri 


¢ Art. xxxvi. [Vid. Confess. Fidei 
Eccl. Gallic. art. 36—38; ap. Com- 
ment. de Statu, Religionibus, et rei- 
publice in regno Galliz Regibus, Hen- 
rico IJ., Franciseo II., et Carolo IX. 
(ed. 8vo. s. ]. 1571.) lib. i. pp. 91, 92; 
item, ap. Corp. et Syntagm. Conf. Fid., 
&e. (ed. 4to. Geney. 1654.) pp. 85, 86.] 

4 | Tpsissima confessionis verba sunt : 
...“‘arcana et incomprehensibili Spiritas 
Sui virtute, per fidem apprehensa, nos 
nutrire et vivificare Corporis et San- 
guinis Sui substantia. Dicimus,”’ 
Xe. | 


CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 


et symbola repudiant ; quum Christus Dominus noster pro- Ο A Ρ. 
nuntiarit: ‘Hoc est Corpus Meum,’ et ‘Hoc poculum est San- 1) _ 
guis Meus.’” Huie autem Confessioni subscripsit Ecclesia 
Genevensis. 

XV. Legati Wormatiam missi ab ecclesiis reformatis Gallicis Legato- 
non absimilem de hoc mysterio Confessionem sequentibus Oy. Coe" 
verbis exhibuerunt. ‘“ Fatemur',” (inquiunt®’,) “in Coena fessio,ann. 
Domini, non omnia modo Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam : ΠΑΝ 
Filii hominis substantiam, ipsam(que) veram carnem, [quam temur.”’] 
Verbum zternum in perpetuam persone unitatem assump- 
sit, in qua natus et passus pro nobis resurrexit, et ascendit 
in celum,| et verum illum Sanguinem quem pro nobis 
fudit, non significari duntaxat, aut symbolice [tantum, aut] 
typice, vel figurate (tanquam absentis memoriam) proponi, 
sed vere ac certe representari, exhiberi, et applicanda of- 
ferri; adjunctis [ipsius rei] symbolis minime nudis, sed 
que (quod ad Deum ipsum attinet, promittentem et offer- 
entem) semper rem ipsam vere ac certe conjunctam ha- 
beant’, sive fidelibus, sive infidelibus (id est, malis Chris- 
tianis) proponantur‘.” 

XVI. Illi vero Confessioni subjungatur Belgica; que Belgica 
“certissimum esse” profitetur’, “Christum in nobis revera ©s%* 
perficere, queecunque Ipse his sacris signis nobis repreesentat ; 
quamyis modus ipse ingenii nostri captum superet, nec percipi 


or 
of 


Ξ fre ha- 
bent.” ] 


e [Vid. Confess. Gallicane et Hel- 1827.) p. 351.—Ubi verba sunt; (ut 
veticze Eecl. de vera Corporis et San- in MS. Dunelm. plenius citata:) 
guinis Domini Jesu Christi presentia Certissimum vero est, Christum non 





in sacramento Eucharistiz, oblat. cum 
consensu et approbatione Germ. Eccl. 
in Colloq. Wormatiensi, anno 1557 ; 
ap. Melch. Goldasti Politica Imperialia, 
par. xxix. (ed. Francof. 1614.) p. 1306. ] 

f [Post hee sequuntur verba:— 
‘“*Jam vero modum, quo res, (id est, 
verum Corpus et verus Sanguis Do- 
mini,) cum symbolis copulatur, dici- 
mus esse symbolicum sive sacramen- 
talem: sacramentalem autem modum 
non vocamus, qui sit duntaxat figura- 
tivus, sed qui vere ac certo sub specie 
rerum visibilium representat quod 
Deus cum symbolis exhibet et offert.’’ ] 

8 Art. xxxv. [Vid. Belg. Fidei 
Confess. Gallice primum anno Do- 
mini 1561. script. ; ap. Syllogen Con- 
fessionum, sub tempus reformandz 
Ecclesie editarum, (ed. 8vo. Oxon. 


sine causa tam sollicite hoe Suum 
sacramentum nobis commendare, ut- 
pote qui perficiat in nobis revera quz- 
cunque Ipse nobis his sacris signis re- 
presentat: quamvis modus ipse in- 
genii nostri captum superet, nec per- 
cipi a quoquam possit; quod videlicet 
omnes Spiritfis Sancti operationes oc- 
cultz sint et incomprehensibiles. Cz- 
terum nequaquam erraverimus, di- 
centes id quod comeditur esse ipsissi- 
mum Christi Corpus naturale, et id 
quod bibitur verum Ipsius Sanguinem: 
at instrumentum, seu medium, quo 
hee comedimus et bibimus, non est os 
corporeum, sed spiritus ipse noster, id- 
que per fidem ; &c.—Conf. Eeel. Belg. 
Confes. art. 35. ap. Corp. et Syntagm. 
Confessionum, &c. p. 146. j 


ὲ 


CAP: 
Its 





Helvetica 
Confessio 
prior. 


Helvetica 
Confessio 
posterior. 


38 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS Ef VERA PRASENTIA 


a quoquam possit, quum Spiritis Sancti operationes occult 
sint et incomprehensibiles.” 

XVII. Jam vero Helvetiorum antiquissimam Confessionem 
apponam ; que, communi consensu Basilez conscripta, ab om- 
nibus Helvetiis Ecclesiis protestantibus recepta et approbata 
fuit. Dicunt® autem, “ Quod fideles, quum edunt panem ac 
bibunt de poculo Domini, intus interim, opera Christi per 
Spiritum Sanctum, percipiunt etiam Carnem et Sanguinem 
Domini, et pascuntur his in vitam eternam.” Sed, licet 
hune cibum spiritualem esse affirmarint, postea tamen con- 
cludunt, “se, per spiritualem cibum, minime intelligere ima- 
ginarium, verum ipsum Domini Corpus pro nobis traditum.” 

XVIII. In Helvetica Confessione posteriori, anno 1566 con- 
scripta et edita, vera Corporis Christi preesentia in Eucharistic 
sacramento verbis non minus disertis affirmatur!; scilicet: 
“Foris offertur a ministro panis, et audiuntur voces Do- 
mini: Accipite, edite, Hoc est Corpus Meum; Accipite, et 
dividite inter vos: Bibite ex hoc omnes; Hic est Sanguis 
Meus. Ergo accipiunt fideles, quod datur a ministro Domini, 
[et edunt panem Domini, ] ac bibunt de poculo Domini: intus 
interim, operai Christi per Spiritum 8., percipiunt etiam 
Carnem et Sanguinem Domini, et pascuntur his in vitam eter- 
nam; [etenim Caro et Sanguis Christi verus cibus et potus est 


~h Cap. xxi.[ Falso certe priorem confes- 
sionem citavit Cosinus ; cujus citationes 
excerpte sunt omnes e Confessione Hel- 
vetica posteriori, ann. 1566, ubi ad cap. 
21. ipsissima sunt hee verba, ut infr. 
num. seq.—Vid, autem Confess. Ee- 
clesiarum per Helvetiam, &c., com- 
posit. Basile, ann. Dom. 1536. Latine 
excus. 1581. art. xxii; ap. Syllogen 
Confess., p. 107; item, ap. Corp. et 
Syntagm. Confess., p. 70.—Ccenam vero 
mysticam, in qua Dominus Corpus et 
Sanguinem Suum, id est, Seipsum, 
suis vere ad hoc offerat, ut magis ma- 
gisque in illis vivat, et illi in Ipso, 
(asserimus) non quod pani et vino 
Corpus Domini et Sanguis vel natu- 
raliter uniantur, sed quod panis et vi- 
num ex institutione Domini symbola 
sint, quibus ab Ipso Domino per Ec- 
clesiz ministerium vera Corporis et 
Sanguinis ejus communicatio, non in 
periturum ventris cibum, sed in eterne 
vite alimoniam, exhibeatur.—Et Conf. 
Confess. Basiliens. vel Mylhusian. 
ann. 1052, script. Germanice, Latine 


excus. 1561, 1581. art. vii. ; ap. Syl- 
logen Conf, p. 112; item, ap. Corp. 
et Syntagm., pp. 73, 74.—Confitemur 
Dominum Jesum sanctam suam Cee- 
nam instituisse ad memorandam sanc- 
tam suam passionem, δα tee. Et, 
sicut baptismo (in quo nobis ablutio a 
peccatis, que tamen a solo Patre, Filio, 
et Spiritu Sancto, perficitur, per minis- 
trum Ecclesiz offertur) vera aqua 
manet; ita etiam in Coena Domini (in 
qua nobis cum pane et vino Domini 
verum Corpus et verus Sanguis Christi 
per ministrum Ecclesie prefiguratur 
et offertur) panis et vinum manet. 
Credimus autem firmiter Ipsummet 
Christum cibum esse credentium ani- 
marum ad vitam eternam, et nostras 
animas, per veram fidem in crucifixum 
Christum, carne et Sanguine Christi 
cibari et potari. ] 

i [Vid. Helv. Confess. ann. 1566. 
art. xxi. ap. Syllog. Confess., pp. 83, 84, 
86; item, ap. Corp. et Syntagm., pp. 
48—50. ]; 


CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO WUCHARISTIA. 39 


ad vitam eternam ;”] &c. (ut supra in priori confessione*.) 
Itemque: “Non est absens Ecclesize Suz, celebranti Ceenam, 
Dominus. Sol, absens a nobis in ceelo, nihilominus efficaciter 
presens est nobis. Quanto magis Sol Justitiz, Christus, 
Corpore in ccelis absens nobis, presens est nobis (non corpo- 
raliter quidem, sed spiritualiter) per vivificam operationem, 
et ut Ipse Se nobis presentem futurum exposuit in ultima 
Coena. (Joh. xiv.—xvi.) Unde consequens est, nos non ha- 
bere Coenam sine Christo: [interim tamen habere Coenam 
incruentam et mysticam, sicuti universa nuncupavit vetus- 
tas.”] Huic autem Confessioni subscripserunt, preeter omnes 
Helvetiorum reformatas Ecclesias, Hungarice, Pannonice 
seu Transylvanice, Polonice, et Lithuanice; que nec Au- 
gustanorum, nec fratrum Bohemorum, confessiones sequun- 
tur. Ita ut reformatorum omnium, hic in parte, perfecta 
sit harmonia. Subscripsit ei quoque Ecclesia Scoticana, ut 
et Genevensis. 

XIX. Accedat postremo preeclara Ecclesiarum reformatarum 
regni Poloniz in Conventu Thorunensi Declaratio'; qua “‘pro- 
fitentur” (quod Eucharistiz sacramentum attinet) ‘se ei sen- 
tentize accedere, quee tum in Augustand Confessione, tum etiam 
in Bohemica et Sendomiriensi, ex Scripturis explicata est.” 
Deinde, vero, in speciali declaratione, sententiam exponunt™, 
et dicunt: 1. “ Hoc sacramentum constare rebus terrenis, 
pane et vino, et ccelestibus, Corpore et Sanguine Domini; 
quze, diverso quidem modo, utreeque tamen verissime, real- 
issime, ac presentissime, nobis exhibentur; nempe, terrene, 
modo naturali, corporali, et terreno; ccelestes vero, modo spiri- 


* | Hee verba, ut supra diximus, in 
confessione priori non leguntur. | 

1 [Vid. Acta Conventis Thorunien- 
sis, celebrati anno 1645. (ed. 4to. Varsa- 
viz, 1646.) Sess. iii. Generalis Confess. 
Doctrine Ecclesiarum Reformatarum, 
in regno Polonia, &c. ὃ Czterum con- 
troversias.—Profitemur ei nos senten- 
tie accedere, que tum in Augustana 
Confessione superioris sculi, anno 30. 
Imp. Car. V. a principibus et civita- 
tibus Imperii protestautibus exhibita, 
sive eam invariatam, sive repetitam, 
aut emendatam, dixeris, tum etiam in 
Bohemica et Sendomiriensi ex Scrip- 
turis explicata, in LEcclesiis hujus 
regni reformatis integrum jam fere 


seculum obtinuit : prout tres illze con- 
fessiones, quamvis Verbis nou nihil dis- 
crepantes, tamen ut reipsa cum Scrip- 
turis, et inter sese in capitibus fidei ne- 
cessarlis conseltientes, Sendomiriensi 
Consensu, anno 1570, in Ecclesiis nos- 
tris recepte uniteque sunt; &c. ] 

m { Vid. Declarat., &c. ὃ De Sacra Cee- 
na, art. 2—4, 10—12; sub cale. Georgii 
Calixti Annotat. in Confess. Reform. 
Thorunii in Colloquio ann. 1645. Sept. 
13. oblat. ed. 4to. Wolferbyti, 1655. pp. 
80—82; item, ap. Scripta partis re- 
formate in Colloquio Thoruniensi ann. 
1645, parti Romano-Catholice exhi- 
bita, &e. (ed. 4to. Berolini, 1646.) § iii. 
Specialior Declaratio, &c.] 


CA P. 


Partis re- 
formatz 
in Con- 
ventuTho- 
runensi 
Confessio. 


C A-P. 
ΤΙ: 


᾿ δ᾽ 97 
laut.” J 


2 [ “ diver- 
simoda,”’ 


Ὁ {5 πὶ 
offertur.”’ | 


Calvinus. 


40 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET VERA PRZSENTIA 


tuali, mystico, et ccelesti.” [9.1] Hinc etiam affirmant, quod 
scilicet “panis et vinum vere sint et dicantur ipsum Corpus 
et Sanguis Christi, non quidem substantialiter, (hoc est', 
corporaliter,) sed sacramentaliter et mystice, seu per et prop- 
ter unionem sacramentalem ; que non consistit in nuda sig- 
nificatione, neque tantum in obsignatione, sed etiam in con- 
juncta illd (et) simultaned rei terrene et ccelestis (quamvis 
diversimodo’) exhibitione et communicatione.” 38. Eodem 
sensu dicunt (cum veteribus,) “panem et vinum in Cor- 
pus et Sanguinem mutari, non quidem ips’ substantia et 
natura, sed usu et officio; im quo sacra hee symbola non 
tam id esse dicuntur, quod sensu percipitur, quam id quod 
Vi promissionis in 115 intuetur et acceptat fides.” 4. Negant 
“‘se statuere nuda, vacua, inania signa, sed potius id quod 
significant, et obsignant, simul vere exhibentia; tanquam 
certissima media et efficacia instrumenta, per que Corpus 
et Sanguis Christi (adeoque Christus Ipse, cum omnibus 
suis beneficiis) singulis vescentibus exhibetur et offertur’, 
credentibus vero confertur, donatur, et ab ipsis in cibum, 
anime salutarem, et vivificum, acceptatur.” 5. Non negant 
“veram Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Coena presentiam, 
sed tantum [localem et] corporalem przsentiz modum.” 
Credunt “Christi nobiscum unionem mysticam, et quidem 
non imaginariam, sed verissimam, realissimam, et efficacissi- 
mam?.” 6. Unde concludunt, “non solam virtutem, effica- 
ciam, operationem, aut beneficia Christi nobis communicari, 
sed imprimis ipsam substantiam Corporis et Sanguinis Christi, 
. ita ut Ipse in nobis, et nos in Ipso maneamus°.” 

XX. Quoniam vero magnum est Calvyini nomen, (qui tam 
Augustanze quam Helveticze Confessioni subscripsit,) audi- 
amus porro, quid et ipse de hoc sanctissimo mysterio credidit 


n (Integra hujus Art. xi. verba 
sunt: “ Nequaquam etiam negamus 
veram Corporis et Sanguinis Christi 
in Cena presentiam, sed tantum lo- 
calem et corporalem modum, et cum 
elementis substantialem: ipsam vero 
nobiscum presentiam sancte credi- 
mus, et quidem non imaginariam, 
sed verissimam, realissimam; nempe, 
ipsam illam Christi nobiscum unionem 
mysticam, quam Ipsemet, ut per ver- 
bum promittit, et per symbola offert, 


ita per Spiritum efficit, quamque nos 
per fidem acceptamus;’’ &c. | 

Se SEU 
Ipsam Illam Victimam, qu pro mundi 
vita data est, et in cruce mactata, ut 
per fidelem hujus Victimz communio- 
nem, et cum Christo Ipso unionem, 
consequenter etiam meritorum et be- 
neficiorum, sacrificio Ejus partorum, 
participes simus, et sicut Ipse in nobis, 
ita nos in Ipso maneamus.”’ } 


CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 41 


et evulgavit ; cujus verba (cum in Institutionibus, tum alibi,) 
talia sunt, et priscorum patrum stylo ac menti tam conveni- 
entia, ut reformatorum Catholicorum nemo aliis uti deside- 
raret. “Audio” (inquit?) “quid verba” Christi “‘sonent; neque 
enim mortis tantum ac resurrectionis Suze beneficium nobis 
offert Christus, sed Corpus ipsum, in quo passus est et resur- 
rexit. Concludo realiter, (ut vulgo loquuntur,) hoc est, vere, 
nobis in Coena dari Christi Corpus, ut sit animis nostris in 
cibum salutarem.” Item4: ‘ Hoc verbum nec mentiri, nec 
illudere nobis,” potest; et, ‘‘ Nisi quis fallacem vocare Deum 
volet, inane ab Ipso symbolum proponi nunquam dicere 
audeat. Itaque, si per fractionem panis Dominus Corporis 
Sui participationem vere representat, minime dubium esse 
debet, quin vere preestet atque exhibeat’.”. .. “ Quod si ve- 
rum est, preeberi nobis signum visibile ad obsignandam invi- 
sibilis rei donationem, accepto Corporis symbolo, non minus 
Corpus etiam ipsum nobis dari certo confidamus.”.. .“ Absur- 
ditatibus omissis', quicquid ad exprimendam veram substan- ! [‘sub- 
tialemque Corporis ac Sanguinis Domini communicationem, Ee 
que cum sacris Coen symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere 
potest, libenter recipio; atque ita ut non imaginatione dun- 
taxat, aut mentis intelligentid percipere, sed ut reipsa frui in 
alimentum vite eterne intelligantur.” Rursus’: ‘ Itaque 
fatendum est, .:..substantiam interiorem sacramenti visi- 
bilibus signis conjunctam esse; et, quemadmodum panis in 
manu distribuitur, ita Corpus Christi, [ut Ejus participes 
simus,| nobis communicari. Hoc certe, etiamsi nihil aliud 
esset, nobis abunde satisfacere deberet ; quum intelligimus 
Christum nobis in Coena veram propriamque Corporis et 

- Sanguinis Sui substantiam donare, ut pleno jure Ipsum pos- 
sideamus, et possidendo in omnem bonorum Suorum societa- 
tem vocemur.” Iterumt: “Idem Corpus, quod semel Filius 


C-A.P. 
Il. 


» Comment. in i. ad Corinth. [xi.24. suadeant. Quorsum enim Corporis 


—Vid. Caly. op., ed. Amstel. 1667. 
tom. vii. p. 182. ] 

4 Institutionis Chr. Rel., lib. iv. e. 
17. [ὃ 38, 10, 19.—Op., tom. ix. pp. 365, 
367, 370. ] 

τ [Hee verba sequuntur apud Calv. 
— Atque omnino isthee piis tenenda 
regula est, ut, quoties symbola vident a 
Domino instituta, illic rei signate veri- 
tatem adesse certo cogitent, ac sibi per- 





Sui symbolum tibi Dominus in ma- 
num porrigat, nisi ut de vera Hjus 
participatione te certiorem faciat? Quod 
51, &c. ] 

8 Tractatu de Coena Domini. [Op., 
tom. viii. p. 3. ] 

‘ (Vid. Explicat. Doctr. de vera par- 
ticipatione Carnis et Sanguinis Christi 
in S. Coena; ubi supr. tom. viii. p. 
744.—Interea tamen statuere oportet, 


CASE: 


δ PTE? 
non legi- 
tur ap. 


Calv. ] 


42 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


Dei Patri in sacrificium obtulit, quotidie nobis in S. CeenA of- 
fert, ut sit in spirituale alimentum.” In his veram, realem, et 
substantialem, Corporis Christi prasentiam et communicati- 
onem, tam clare adserit, quam a quoquam potest adseri; sed 
modum determinare studiose non affectat. ‘ De modo” (ait) 
‘si quis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse ar- 
canum, quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel ut! verbis 
enarrari, queat; atque (ut apertius dicam) experior magis 
quam intelligam. Itaque veritatem Dei, in qua acquiescere 
tuto licet, hic sine controversid amplector. Pronuntiat 1116, 
Carnem Suam esse anime mez cibum, Sanguinem esse po- 
tum: talibus alimentis animam {111 meam pascendam offero. 
In sacra [Sua] Coena jubet me, sub symbolis panis ac vini, 
Corpus ac Sanguinem Suum sumere, manducare, ac bibere : 
nihil dubito, quin et Ipse vere porrigat, et ego recipiam.” 
Heec totidem verbis Calvinus. 

XXI. Hee 6 probatis auctoribus, ac publicis Ecclesiarum 
Confessionibus, aliquanto prolixius in medium producere vo- 
luimus, ut melius innotesceret, quantis calumniis theologi 
protestantes, ab aliis rerum ignaris, inique onerentur; quasi 
per verba ‘ spiritualiter’ et ‘sacramentaliter’ veram (sive, sano 
sensu, realem) Corporis et Sanguinis Domini in 8. Eucha- 
ristia przesentiam et communicationem minime agnoscerent : 
quum, e contrario, illam ita diserte profitentur omnes, ut vix 
disertius, quam quibus ipsi usi sunt verbis, adseri potuisset. 


CARPUT Ni. 


I. QuID PER τὸ ‘CHRISTUM SPIRITUALITER PRESENTEM ESSE IN EUCHA- 
RISTIA’ INTELLIGANT ROMANENSES. II. QuID PER ILLUD IPSUM BER- 
NARDUS INTELLEXERIT. III. QuID PER ID INTELLIGANT PROTESTANTIUM 
EccLESI®. IV. ΕἾΡΕΒ PRESENTIAM CHRISTI NON FACIT, SED PRESUP- 
Pponit. V. UNIO CORPORIS CHRISTI CUM SYMBOLO PANIS, SACRAMEN- 
TALIS EST. 


1, Quum ex Confessionibus supra memoratis satis superque 
constet, Protestantes credere, quod spiritualiter nv vere adsit 


non aliud Corpus vivificum nobis esse, pus, quod semel Filius Dei, &c. ] 

aut vere cibum posse censeri, nisi quod a Instit.; lib. ἵν. ὁ. 10: τἰ 59: Β΄ 
pro expiandis peccatis erucifixum est: tom. ix. p. 375.] 

sicuti et verba sonant. Idem ergo Cor- 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 43 


Christus in Coend, (unde fit, ut vocem illam ‘spiritualiter,’ vete- 
rum exemplo, toties in hac materia usurpent,) juvat hic subjun- 
gere, quid Romanenses ipsi de voce illa sentiant. Kam sic 
illi exponunt, ut significet*, “ Christum adesse in Eucharistié 
non ad modum quo suapte natura existunt corpora, vel quo 
Corpus Ejus residet in ceelo, sed ad modum existendi spiri- 
tuum; quum sit totus in qualibet parte” hostiz: et, ‘ quam- 
vis per se nec videatur, nec tangatur, nec moveatur, tamen, 
ratione specierum sive accidentium, quibus conjunctus est, 
potest dici videri, tangi, et moveri;” itaY “ut, motis speciebus, 
vere moveatur Corpus Christi, (quamvis per accidens,) quo- 
modo anima nostra vere mutat locum, quum Corpus mutat 
locum; atque ut vere et proprie dicamus Christi Corpus in 
Eucharistia attolli, deponi, deferri, collocari in altari vel in 
pyxide, transferri a manu ad os, et ab ore ad stomachum :” 
prout’, “in concilio Romano sub Nicholao Papa secundo, 
compulsus est Berengarius confiteri, Christi Corpus sensua- 
liter sacerdotum manibus tangi, et frangi,” atque etiam den- 


tibus atteri?. 


* Card. Bellarm. de Euch., lib. 
i. c. 2. De explicatione sententiz 
Catholice (Romane,) ὃ Tert. Reg. 
et seqq. [Vid. Bellarm. op., ed. Ve- 
net. 1721, tom. iii. p. 186; ubi verba 
sunt:—(Reg. 3.) Adverbia, que di- 
cunt modum existendi corporalem, non 
dicuntur de Christo in Eucharistia, 
licet dicantur de Ipso ut in celo re- 
sidet: alia vero nihil prohibet dici. 
Ratio est, quia (ut sepe diximus) non 
habet Christus in Eucharistia mo- 
dum existendi corporum, sed potius 
spirituum, cum sit totus in qualibet 
parte. Itaque dicemus Christum esse 
in Eucharistia vere, realiter, substan- 
tialiter, ut concilium recte loquitur; 
sed non dicemus corporaliter, id est, eo 
modo quo suapte natura existunt cor- 
pora, nec sensibiliter, mobiliter, &c. 
Immo, contra dici posset esse spiritu- 
aliter, ut Bernardus dicit in sermone 
de S. Martino, ubi affirmat in sacra- 
mento exhiberi nobis veram carnis sub- 
stantiam, sed spiritualiter, non carna- 
liter: tamen non videtur hee vox 


multum frequentanda, quia periculum 
esset, &c.—( Reg. 5.) Quamvis Corpus 
Christi in Eucharistia per se non vi- 
deatur, nec tangatur, nec moveatur ; 
tamen, ratione specierum sive acciden- 


Verum hee omnia, atque id genus alia pluri- 


tium quibus conjunctum est, potest 
dici videri, tangi, moveri; &c.—Vid. 
etiam reg. 6, ibid.—Ideo sit regula 
sexta ex Petro de Soto, lect. vi. de sa- 
cramento Eucharistie. Verba, que 
significant motum localem, vere et pro- 
prie dicuntur de Corpore Christi in 
Eucharistia existente, ratione specie- 
rum, licet per accidens, non per se: 
cztera autem, que significant alias 
mutationes vel actiones, dicuntur qui- 
dem de Corpore Christi ratione spe- 
cierum, sed improprie et figurate. ] 

y Ibid., prima par. [Prima pars hu- 
jus regule (scil. sexta) certissima est, 
quia realis presentia Corporis Christi 
id necessario requirit, ut, motis specie- 
bus, vere moveatur Corpus Christi, 
&c. | 

2 Tbid., § Quinta regula. [ Ubi supr. ] 

a [Vid. Cone. Rom. sub Nic. Pap. 
IT., ap. Labbe, tom. ix. col. 1101, ubi 
Berengarii abjurationis verba sunt: 
“Ego Berengarius ... et ore et corde 
profiteor... etiam verum Corpus et 
Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi 
esse, et sensualiter, non solum sacra- 
mento, sed in veritate, manibus sacer- 
dotum tractari, et frangi, et fidelium 
dentibus atteri.”’ ] 


CAP. 
III. 





CAP. 
1710: 


44 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


ma, nec δ. Scriptura nec antiqui patres unquam nobis tra- 
diderunt. Atqui, etiamsi daretur spirituum seu animarum 
talis presentia, qualem hic vult Bellarminus, eam corpori 
humano attribuere absurdum esset, cum corporum natu- 
ram destruat. 

II. Fatetur quidem Bellarminus cum Bernardo?, Christum 
in sacramento nobis exhiberi, non carnaliter, sed spiritua- 
liter; qui utinam ita acquievisset, nec ulterius, quam ducit 
S. Scriptura et antiqua patrum doctrina, progressus esset. 
Modum enim presentiz et manducationis Corporis Christi 
accuratius quam par erat, cum Innocentio Papi III. et 
synodo Tridentin4, explicare laborans, eidem opera, quicquid 
antea recte dixerat, perperam evertit, et statim respuit quod 
prius optime adseruerat, suam ipsius sententiam impugnans. 
Timet* scilicet “ periculum,” ne spiritualiter illud “ trahatur” 
ab lis, quos vocat ‘‘ adversarios,” “non tam ad modum signi- 
ficandum, quam ad ipsam naturam” Corporis et Sanguinis 
Domini excludendam; “ propter quod item periculum, non 
videtur,” ait, “valde usurpandum illud” 8. Bernardi, Corpus 
Christi “non esse corporaliter” in sacramento, “nisi conti- 
nuo addatur explicatio” superius posita; quam nos humane 
sive curiositati, sive arrogantiz, (que mihil videri vult nes- 
cire,) acceptam ferimus. Hcquod autem periculum? aut quid 
tandem timet; quum ipsam veram naturam Corporis Christi, 
et realem ac substantialem przsentiam, nobis in sacra com- 
munione exhiberi, omnes Evangelio credentes fateantur ; 
addita circa modum duntaxat S. Bernardi explicatione, quam 
ipse etiam Cardinalis, vi veritatis adactus, improbare non 
ausus est? Cur igitur admittit modum esse spiritualem, non 
carnalem ; deinde carnalem preseutiam requirit, etiam quoad 
modum? Ad nos quod attinet, dicimus aperte et affirmamus 
omnes cum Bernardo, in Eucharistid Corpus Christi preesens 
adesse spirituali, adeoque vera et reali, presentia; negamus 
yero, pariter omnes cum eodem Bernardo et universi anti- 
quitate, carnalem Corporis Christi in Eucharistia tum pree- 
sentiam tum exhibitionem. Rem ipsam igitur lubentes am- 


> S. Bernard. Sermo 46 5. Mart.[Op., carnaliter, exhibeatur. ] 
ed. Par. 1586, tom. i. col. 411.—Quod © Card. Bell., ubi supr. § Tert. reg. 
residuum (agni) est, utique jam, datur  [ tom. iil. p. 186.—Bellarminiverbasunt: 
igni: quod videlicet usque hodie,eodem . . ‘non tam ad modum, quam ad ip- 
caro nobis, sed spiritualiter, utiquenon sam naturam significandam.’’ ] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 415 


plectimur; a modo autem inquirendo humiles et devoti 
abstinemus. 

111. Przsentiam credimus, et conjunctionem Christi cum 
anima, atque etiam cum corpore nostro; quam melius vocare 
non possumus quam sacramentalem, hoc est, que per viam 
comestionis fiat ; ita ut, dum panem sacratum comedimus et 
vinum sanctificatum bibimus, simul cum eis Ipsum Corpus 
et Sanguinem Christi edamus et bibamus, non vid aut modo 
corporali, sed alio incomprehensibili, et soli Deo noto, quem 
spiritualem vocamus; generalem enim modi explicaticnem 
non improbamus, (si hic sistatur, cum Bernardo et cunctis 
veteribus,) sed eorum temeritatem qui, altum se sapere pu- 
tantes, curiose et petulanter inquirunt quid sit esse spiritu- 
aliter preesens, quasi modum agendi Spiritis Dei compre- 
hendere se posse crederent. Nos vero hunc modum fate- 
mur, cum patribus, esse ineffabilem atque imperscrutabilem, 
—hoe est, non ratione inquirendum, aut indagandum, sed 
sold fide credendum. Etsi enim videtur incredibile, in tanta 
locorum distantia, penetrare ad nos Christi Carnem, ut nobis 
sit in cibum, meminisse tamen oportet, quantum supra 
sensus nostros emineat Spiritis S. virtus, et quam stultum 
sit Ejus immensitatem modo nostro metiri velle. Quod ergo 
mens nostra non comprehendit, concipiat fides. 

IV. Que tamen fides prsentiam istam non facit, aut 
prestat; sed, jam nunc per verbum Christi factum, ve- 
rissimam et realem esse apprehendit. Et fides quidem, qua 
Christi caro dicitur a nobis manducari, non est ea sola, qua 
Christus pro peccatis nostris crucifixus et mortuus creditur, 
(ista enim fides preesupponitur, et ante sacramentalem man- 
ducationem requiritur,) sed proprie ea est, qua creditur 
verbo Christi, dicentis, Hoc est Corpus Meum; id, quod 
S. Augustinus® intellexit, quum ait: “Quid paras dentem et 
ventrem ? crede, et manducisti.” In hic enim mystica man- 
ducatione, per admirabilem Spirittis S. virtutem, invisibiliter 
substantize Corporis et Sanguinis Christi communicamus, 


4 §. Aug. super Joh. [vi. 28.] Tract. cibum, non qui perit, sed qui per- 
25. [ὃ 12.—Op., tom. iii. par. 11. 60]. 489. manet in vitam xternam, Ut quid 
—-‘ Quid faciemus?’ inquiunt...... Re- paras dentes et ventrem? Crede, et 
spondit Jesus, et dixit eis: ‘Hoc est mandueasti. Discernitur quidem ab 
opus Dei, ut credatis in Eum quem _ operibus fides ; &c.] 
misit 1116. Hoe est ergo manducare 





CAP. 


ITT. 


ΘΣΑΣΡῚ 


IIT. 


46 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUAL] MANDUCATIONE 


haud secus ac si visibiliter Carnem et Sanguinem Ejus ede- 
remus et biberemus. 

V. Summa est: Corpus et Sanguis Christi uniuntur pani 
et vino sacramentaliter, ita ut credentibus vere Christus ex- 
hibeatur, nullo tamen vel sensu vel ratione hujus seculi, sed 
fide verbis Evangelii nitente, intuendus. Dicitur autem 
Christi Caro et Sanguis pani et vino uniri, quia in Eucha- 
ristiz celebratione simul et semel cum pane Caro, et cum 
vino Sanguis, exhibentur et percipiuntur. Nihil nunc restat, 
nisi ut in ejus mysteri admirationem prorumpamus; cui nec 
mens plane cogitando, nec lingua explicando, par esse potest. 


ΟΡ: 


1, ΤῈ TRANSMUTATIONE PANIS ET VINI IN CORPUS ET SANGUINEM DOMINI, 
QU PONTIFICIIS TRANSUBSTANTIATIO DICITUR. II. Dr OMNIPOTENTIA 
DEI. III. Dr accrpENTIBUS PANIS. IV. SACRAMENTALIS UNIO SIGNI 
ET sIGNATI. V. ET VI. Status CONTROVERSIM, TAM NEGATIVE, QUAM 
AFFIRMATIVE, DECLARATUR. VII. CoNCILIT TRIDENTINI DEFINITIO. 
Butta pil IV. PAPA, ET FORMA JURAMENTI AB EODEM PAPA PRAISCRIPTI. 
D ECRETALE INNOCENTH III. Jesurrarum pictata. VIII. Portentum 
INGENS, TRANSUBSTANTIATIO. 


I. Arup pontificios pro articulo fidei habetur, quod in 
Eucharistia panis et vini substantia annihilatur, que ejus 
locum Corpus et Sanguis Christi succedunt; (sicut in ¢ 6. 
et 7. fusius videbimus.) Reformati vero longe aliter statuunt. 
Conversionem autem sive transmutationem panis in Corpus 
Christi (vini in Sanguinem Ejus, par est ratio) nemo protes- 
tantium negat simpliciter. Sciunt enim et admittunt, panem 
in Eucharistid, vi verborum atque benedictionis Christi, con- 
ditione, usu, et officio, plane immutatum esse ; hoc est, de 
communi et vulgari, mysticum et sacramentalem nobis fac- 
tum esse cibum; per quem non solum significari, sive per 
figuram adumbrari, sed et re ipsi simul exhiberi, atque in 
animis digne communicantium ipsum verum Christi Corpus 
recipi, omnes affirmant, firmiterque credunt. Interim, ipsum 
hunc panem amittere suam substantiam, et transire in sub- 
stantiam Corporis Christi, nequaquam credunt; quum nec 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 47 


Scripture Sacre, nec veteres per multa seecula Scripturarum 
interpretes, talem unquam conversionem, aut essentialem 
transmutationem nobis tradiderint, qué ipsa panis substantia 
(id est, materia et forma) abjiciatur; sed sacramentalem 
tantum, et mysteriis refertam, qua panis communis ita mu- 
tatur in mysticum, ut ad aliud officium, usum, et finem alium, 
destinetur; quee quidem mutatio tum gratiz convenit, tum 
potentiz Divine, naturalem rerum essentiam non abolenti, 
sed conservanti, eique ad supernaturales effectts utenti. 

II. De omnipotentia Dei, an hoc vel illud facere possit, non 
est quod disputemus; et infinitam Ejus potentiam decempeda 
imbecilitatis nostre metiri non debemus. Demus []lum 
aliquid posse, quod non sit penes non investigare, et in 
omnibus, que facit, sit ratio facti voluntas et potentia Fa- 
cientis: contradictoria tamen Ei minime sunt attribuenda. 
At etiamsi omnipotentia Dei tanta esset, ut posset in Eucha- 
ristii substantiam panis et vini annihilare, et in Corpus et 
Sanguinem Christi essentialiter transmutare, (accidentibus 
panis et vini absque subjecto remanentibus,) tamen, quod 
Deus id fieri velit, et quod idem factum sit in hoc sanctissimo 
sacramento, id nobis probari postulamus. Neque enim a 
posse ad velle valebit argumentum; et Deum velle, quod 
volunt transubstantiatores, nimis audacter ab eis pronun- 
ciatum est. Dixit olim Tertullianus® contra Praxeam: “ Non, 
quia” Deus “omnia potest facere, ideo [utique] credendum 
est Illum” hoe vel illud “fecisse, [etiam quod non fecerit :] 
sed, an fecerit, requirendum.” Non enim agnoscit Deus 
ejusmodi omnipotentiz Suze laudem, qua veritatis et con- 
stantiz laus Sibi adimatur, et rerum in Ipsius Verbo testa- 
tarum natura evertatur. Sublatis enim pane et vino, ipsum 
quoque sacramentum tollitur. 

III. Qui formam et materiam panis penitus evanescere 
statuunt, iidem accidentia panis remanere volunt. At si, 
vi verborum Christi, substantia panis mutetur in substan- 
tiam Corporis Ejus, quid obstat, quo minus efidem vi etiam 
mutentur accidentia panis in accidentia ejusdem Corporis ? 
Qui urgent τὸ ῥητὸν, ostendere debebant Christum dixisse : 
Hoe est substantia Corporis Mei absque suis accidentibus. 
Sed Christus non phantasticum Corpus aut spectrum Mar- 


€ [Vid.Tertull. contr. Praxeam, ap.Tertulliani op.,ed. Rigalt. Lut. Par. 1664.p.505. ] 





ΟἿΑΓΣ 
Vee 


C AP. 
Τὰ: 


1 Vid. cap. 
iii, § 5. 


48 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


cioniticum se discipulis dare dixit, at ΠΙᾺ Ipsum Corpus 
quod pro nobis traditum, nec quantitate nec reliquis humani 
corporis accidentibus carens; absque quibus nec tradi nec 
crucifigi potuit. Quum transubstantiatores fateantur Cor- 
pus Christi quantitatem suam in celo retinere, in sacra- 
mento autem negent,—aut contradictionem agnoscant, aut 
transubstantiationem suam auferant, omnino necesse est. 

IV. Reformatis Ecclesiis non licet esse tam curiosis, neque 
supra Scripturam et antiquitatem sapere; que, verbis Christi 
firmissime credentes', formam hujus sacramenti statuunt in 
unione signi cum re signata, id est, Corporis Christi exhibi- 
tione, pane manente pane, et sacramentalibus usibus desti- 
nato; per quam hee duo, ex divina ordinatione, ita unum 
fiunt, ut, quamvis unio ista non sit naturalis, aut substantialis, 
aut hypostatica, aut localis, (per unius in altero existentiam,) 
tamen, adeo concinna est, et vera, ut in comestione sacrati 
panis verum Christi Corpus nobis communicetur, ac signi sig- 
natique nomina passim ultro citroque permutentur, et pani 
tribuatur quod est Corporis, et contra Corpori quod est pa- 
nis; Sintque simul tempore, qu disjuncta sunt loco. Nam 
presentia Corporis Christi in hoc mysterio, non distantiz, 
sed absentize opponitur; et quidem ista, non illa, usum et 
fruitionem objecti intercipit. 

ὟΝ, Ex his patet, quod status istius controversiz, que 
reformatos inter et pontificios hodie agitatur, ad quatuor om- 
nino capita reduci potest :—primum de signis, secundum de 
re signati, tertium de signorum et rerum conjunctione, 
quartum de eorundem participatione. Et, quod ad primum 
attinet, in hoc nos ab illis discrepamus, quod illi pro signis 
tantum statuuut accidentia, nos vero substantiam panis et 
vini, ut sacramentorum natura postulat, et docet Scriptura. 
In secundo, non id dicimus, quod ill, sententiai nostra non 
bene intellecti, nobis affingunt. Non enim dicimus, merita 
tantum mortis Christi per sacrata symbola significari, sed 
ipsum verum Corpus quod pro nobis crucifixum, ipsumque 
verum Sanguinem pro nobis effusum, tum representari, tum 
offerri; ut mentes nostre Christo perfruantur, non minus 
certo, et vere, quam ipsa corporalia et visibilia signa videmus, 
accipimus, edimus, et bibimus. Ad tertium itaque, quoniam 
res significata nobis offertur, et exhibetur, tam vere quam 


CORPORIS CHRIST] IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI 2. 49 


signa ipsa, ei ratione, signorum cum Corpore et Sanguine 
Domini conjunctionem agnoscimus, et mutata esse elementa 
dicimus in usum alium ab eo, quem prius_ habuerunt. 
Negamus vero, quod affirmant pontificii, evanescere panis et 
vini substantiam, aut ita mutatam esse in Corpus et San- 
guinem Domini, ut nihil tandem reliquum sit, preter nuda 
elementorum accidentia, que cum eodem Corpore et Sanguine 
conjungantur. Quinetiam negamus sacramentum, extra 
usum a Deo institutum, rationem habere sacramenti, in quo 
Christus reservari aut circumgestari debeat, aut possit; *quum 
communicantibus tantum adsit. Postremo (quod in quarto 
capite restat explicandum) non dicimus, in hac sacra Coen, 
nos tantum esse participes fructis mortis et passionis Christi, 
sed fundum ipsum cum fructibus, qui ab Ipso ad nos redeant, 
conjungimus; asserentes cum Apostolo, “ Panem quem fran- 
gimus esse κοινωνίαν Corporis Christi, et poculum Sanguinis 
Hjus communicationem,” (imo, in eidem illé substantia, quam 
accepit in utero Virginis, et quam sursum in celos invexit ;) 
in hoc tantum a pontificiis dissidentes, quod illi manduca- 
tionem hance et conjunctionem corporaliter fieri credant, nos 
non naturali aliqué ratione, aut modo corporali, sed tamen 
tam vere, quam si naturaliter aut corporaliter Christo con- 
jungeremur®, Et, quemadmodum qui indigne (hoc est, ore 
corporeo, non mente fideli) sacramentum usurpat, damna- 
tionem sibi ipsi edit et bibit, sic etiam, qui digne id facit, 
absolutionem et justificationem comedit ; quod itidem nihil 
aliud est, quam dijudicare, atque edere Corpus Domini, 
quatenus laceratum est, et bibere Ejus Sanguinem, quatenus 
pro mundi viti fusus est. Interim,—quod asserunt ponti- 
ficii,—Christum dare nobis Corpus et Sanguinem Suum, ore 
ac dentibus sumendum et comedendum, ita ut non solum de- 
glutiatur ab impiis, veri fide destitutis, sed etiam a muribus 
et gliribus,—id vero nos ore, corde, et mente penitus per- 
negamus. 


VI. Itaque (ut hee omnia 


§ [Vid. MS. Dunelm., ubi proxima 
verba sic leguntur:—‘ qui tantum su- 
mentibus adest, et vera fide non desti- 
tutis.’ 

h [Vid. MS. Dunelm., ubi hee verba 
interposita leguntur: ‘ Esus enim ille 
certe qui imperatur, quando Christi 


COSIN. 


in summam rei controverse 


Corpus comedere jubemur, non est esus 
corporeus ; nam panem, qua Christi 
Corpus est, ore non comedimus, sed 
animo: edere autem animo panem qua 
Christi Corpus est, et edere Corpus 
Christi, unum et idem esse affirma- 
mus. | 


CAP. 
UW 


1Cor.x.16. 


CRAP: 
LY. 


50 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


reducamus) non queritur, an Corpus Christi a sacramento 
suo, juxta mandatum Ejus instituto ac usurpato, absit: 
quod nos protestantes et reformati nequaquam dicimus aut 
credimus: (nam, quum ibi detur et sumatur, omnino oportet 
ut adsit, licet sacramento suo quasi contectum sit, et ibi, ut 
in se est, conspici nequeat:) neque queritur aut controver- 
titur, an panis et vinum supernaturali virtute et omnipo- 
tentid Divina, a communi elementorum usu, in sublimiorem 
usum et dignitatem transmutentur ;—fatemur enim in sacra- 
mentis omnino necesse esse ceelestem et supernaturalem 
mutationem intervenire, nec posse fieri sacramentum, nisi 
per omnipotentiam Dei; Cujus Solius est sacramenta in 
Ecciesii instituere, ipsisque efficaciam tribuere. Denique 
non dicimus Dominum discipulis Suis dedisse tantum figu- 
ram, symbolum, aut signum Sui Corporis; neque negamus 
Corpus et Sanguinem Christi sacramentaliter uniri cum pane 
et vino Eucharistico, aut vere, realiter, et substantialiter usur- 
pari in sacramento; sed (ut omnem evitemus ambiguita- 
tem) negamus, post verborum prolationem, et consecrationem 
panis, panem non amplius esse panem, sed transubstantiari 
in Corpus Christi, ita ut de pane et vino nihil residuum sit, 
preterquam prioris substantiz accidentia. Proinde tota 
queestio est de symbolorum externorum transubstantiatione : 
an scilicet substantia panis convertatur in substantiam Cor- 
poris Christi, et substantia vini in substantiam Sanguinis 
Christi; sive (ut hodie Ecclesiz Romane doctores transub- 
stantiationem describunt) an substantia panis et vini intereat, 
inque ejus locum substantia Corporis et Sanguinis Christi 
succedat : quorum utrumque reformati negant. 

VIL. Ecclesia Romana in festo Corporis Christi canit:: 
“ Non est panis, sed est Deus-homo, Liberator meus.” Con- 
cilium Tridentinum rem ipsam sic definivit* :—“ Quoniam .. 
...-Christus, Redemptor noster, Corpus Suum id, quod sub 
specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit, ideo persuasum semper 
in Ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nunc hee sancta synodus declarat, 


i {Hee verba nec in Romano nec in “Non est panis, sed est Deus 
Parisiensi Breviarioinventa sunt. Vid. Homo, Liberator meus: 
autem ‘ Carm. Joannis Hussi de Coena Qui in cruce pependisti, 
Sacra ;’ ap. Herm. Adalbert. Danielis Et in carne defecisti.”’ ] 
‘Thesaurum Hymnologicum,’ &c. (8vo. k Cone. Trid. Sess. xiii, c. 4, [ Labbe, 


Lipsiz, 1844.) tom. ii. par.iii. Append., tom. xiv. col. 806. ] 
p. 870. carm, xl. ν. 5:— 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARIST ®. 51 


per consecrationem panis et vini, conversionem fieri totius 
substantiz panis in substantiam Corporis [Christi] Domini 
nostri, et totius substantiz vini in substantiam Sanguinis 
Ejus; que conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta Catho- 
lic” Romana ““ Ecclesii transubstantiatio est appellata.””— 
Proinde!: “ Si quis dixerit, in sacrosancto Eucharistiz sacra- 
mento, remanere substantiam panis et vini una cum Corpore 
et Sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, negaveritque mira- 
bilem illam et singularem conversionem totius substantiz 
panis in Corpus, et totius substantiz vini in Sanguinem, 
manentibus duntaxat speciebus panis et vini; quam quidem 
conversionem Catholica” Romana “ Ecclesia aptissime tran- 
substantiationem appellat : anathema sit.”—Ad eundem mo- 
dum definiens ipse Papa, atque idem concilium confirmans, 
juxta hane et non aliam formam, professionem et juramen- 
tum fidei fieri districte precipiendo mandavit, atque unum 6 
novis symboli Romani articulis voluit esse hujusmodi™, sub 
tenore et poend sequenti: “ Ego N. firma fide credo et pro- 
fiteor omnia et singula que continentur in symbolo Fidei, 
quo Sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur; videlicet: Credo in 
unum Deum; &c.... Profiteor pariter in Missa ...; atque in 
Eucharistiz sacramento esse vere, realiter, et substantialiter, 
Corpus et Sanguinem uni cum Anima et Divinitate Domini 
nostri Jesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantiz 
panis in Corpus, et totius substantiz vini in sanguinem” ; 
quam conversionem Catholica” Romana “ Ecclesia transub- 
stantiationem appellat. . . . Omnia .. . a sacrosanctia 
Tridentini synodo tradita, definita, et declarata, indubi- 
tanter recipio; ... simulque contraria omnia, .. . ab eddem 
damnata, rejecta, et anathemizata, ego pariter damno, 
rejicio, et anathematizo.” Atque, “ hance veram catholicam 
fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, (quam in pre- 
senti sponte profiteor, et veraciter teneo,) eandem integram et 
inviolatam, usque ad extremum vite spiritum, constantissime 
retinere . .. . . spondeo, voveo, ac juro: Sic me Deus adju- 
vet, et hec sancta Dei Evangelia.” Istud vero mandatum 

' Thid., can. 2. [ubisupr. col. 808.] ο0]. 944, 945, 946.] 

™ Bulla Pii Pape 1V. confirm, Cone. 1 [Hoe loco in margine manuscripti 
Trid. super forma juramenti professio- | Dunelmenis verba ‘ Hactenus bene’ ru- 


nis Fidei, una cum eodem Concilio _ brica scripta sunt. } 
edita. [ Vid. Labb., Concilia, tom. xiv. 


E 2 








CAP. 
Ys 


CAP. 
EV: 





52 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


tali epiphonemate et interminatione claudit: “Nulli ergo 
omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam nostre voluntatis et 
mandati infringere, vel ei aust temerario contraire. Si quis 
autem hoc attentare preesumpserit, indignationem Omnipo- 
tentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum Ejus, se 
noverit incursurum. Datum Rome, apud sanctum Petrum, 
anno Incarnationis Dominic millesimo quingentesimo sexa- 
gesimo quarto, idibus Novembris, pontificatis nostri anno 
quinto.” Nimirum, hance suam fidem Romanam recepit 
Papa Pius quartus a Papa Innocentio tertio, qui doctrinam 
de transubstantiatione panis et vini in Corpus et Sanguinem 
Christi primus omnium stabilivit, Fideique duodecim articulis 
addidit, atque ita decimum tertium fabricavit, et in Decre- 
talibus suis promulgavit. Sic enim in Decretali Innocentu 
111. sub annum 1215. Lateranensi congregationi proposito, 
ac postea a Papa Gregorio IX, ejusdem Innocentii nepote, 
promulgato, scriptum legitur®; viz.: ‘ Firmiter credimus, et 
simpliciter confitemur, quod unus solus est verus Deus,” &c. ; 
quodque ‘ Corpus et Sanguis” Christi ‘in sacramento alta- 
ris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, tran- 
substantiatis pane in Corpus, et vino in Sanguinem.” Hisce 
paparum definitionibus subjiciamus tantum trium Jesui- 
tarum dictata; que ab omnibus quidem, non prisce, sed 
recentis, Romane fidei asseclis magna pertinacia recipiuntur. 
1. Alphonsi Salmeronis: “ Necessario statuenda est” (in- 
quit?) “transubstantiatio; tum, ut excludatur panis et vini 
substantia, quam Lutherus et aliqui’ alii “ admiserunt ; tum, 
ut verba Domini” (que tamen absque hoc sunt verissima‘) 
“‘verainveniantur, [ut deducemus ;| tum, ut infinita patrum’ 
testimonia, de conversione, [com]mutatione, consecratione, 
benedictione, transformatione, sanctificatione, (tot enim fere 
nominibus transubstantiatio ab illis appellata est,) firma 
sint, et non inania, vel futilia: tum denique, ut solidam 
Corporis et Sanguinis Christi preesentiam tueri possimus‘’.” 


Quod igitur; ed. Col. Agr. 1604, tom. 
ix. p. 108. ] 


ο Decretal. de sum. Trin. et Fide 
Cathol., tit. i. cap. Firmiter credimus. 


[Vid. Decret. Greg. IX. lib. i. tit. i. 
cap. 1.—Corp. Jur. Can., ed. Par. 1612, 
tom. 11. col. 7, 9.] 

P Tom. ix. Tract. xvi. [Alphons, Sal- 
meron.Comment. in Evang. Hist., tract. 
xvi. De veritate Corporis Christi, § 


4 [In MS. Dunelm. hee verba mar- 
gine leguntur in transcriptoris manu. | 

τ De his, quam parum ad hance rem 
pertineant, videbimus infra. 

5. [ Alph. Salmeronis ipsissima verba 
sunt: .. . “tum denique, ut solidam 


53 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTLA. 


Item‘t: “Ut David coram Abimelech vultum suum mu- 
tavit, et tune accepit panes propositionis, qui erant certus 
Eucharistiz typus, ita Christus in sacramento simulat Se 
panem esse; quia proprie panis non est, etsi esse maxime 
videatur. 2. Francisci Toleti Cardinalis": ‘“ Verba” con- 
secrationis ‘‘ efficacia” “sunt instrumenta transubstantiandi 
substantiam panis in Christi verum Corpus; ita ut, post 
prolationem, in illé Hostid non sit panis ulla substantia, 
sed sola illius’ accidentia, que dicuntur species panis, sub 
quibus est verum Corpus Christi presens.” 3. Denique, 
Roberti Bellarmini itidem Cardinalis*: “Catholica Ecclesia 
semper docuit, per conversionem substantiz panis et vini in 
Corpus et Sanguinem Domini (que conversio postmodum 
transubstantiatio appellata est) fieri, ut Corpus et Sanguis 
Domini vere et realiter in sacramento Eucharistiz presentia 
sint.” Verba aliorum, qui, ut Ecclesiz Latine sive Ro- 
mane, ejusque pontifici, absolutam quidvis definiendi potes- 


σΑΡ, 
᾿ν: 


al 105 
sius.”’ } 


tatem vindicarent, nihilo saniora protulerunt, haud oper 


pretium erit recitare, nisi cui lubeat defensorem’ Bellar- 
mini Gretserum, aut eum 7 qui primus calamum contra Lu- 
therum strinxit, audire ; qui rem omnem tandem ad unicum 
pontificis judicium et mandatum revocant. 

VIII. Nos nunc, quid Deus possit, considerare super- 
sedemus ; nam de Dei voluntate nobis constare debet, ante- 
quam de Ejus potentia solliciti simus. Hoc tamen dicimus : 
Transubstantiationem istam Romanam genus esse portenti, 
quod omnium superat miraculorum indolem, Et, quamvis 
Dominus, immensi Sua virtute, substantiam panis in aliam 


Corporis et Sanguinis Christi prasen- 
tiam absque ullo loci motu tueri pos- 
sumus; nam, quod in Ipsum Christi 
Corpus, quod in ccelo est, mutatur, non 
indiget aliquo locali motu, ut esse inci- 
piat in Eucharistia. | 

' Tom. xvi. disp. 3. in Ep. S. Petri. 
[Alph. Salm. in 1 S. Pet. ii, ubi 
supr., tom. xvi. p. 67.] 

" Instru. Sacerd., lib. ii. ο. 27. [ed. 
4to. Col. Agr. 1621. pp. 318, 319. ] 

* Lib. iii, de Euch. ec. xi. [De modo 
existentize Corporis Domini, Wc., § i.— 
Bellarm. Op. ed. Ingolst. 1601. tom. 
iii. col. 711. ] 

ἡ Gretserus Def. Bellarm., lib. iii. c. 9. 
[ Vid. ed. Ingolst. 1607, tom. i. col. 


1403.--Cum igitur judex controver- 
siarum neque sit Scriptura, neque prin- 
ceps politicus, neque privatus uniuscu- 
jusque spiritus, conficitur judicem hune 
esse principem ecclesiasticum, hoc est, 
Romanum Pontificem, vel solum, vel 
certe cum concilio et consensu coépi- 
scoporum.— Et passim. | 

 Silv. Prierias, sub initio Dial. [de 
potestate pape; ap. Lutheri op. ed. 
Jenz, 1564,—Vid. tom. i. p. 16.—Fun- 
damentum tertium. Quicunque non 
innititur doctrine Romane Ecclesize 
ac Romani pontificis, tanquam regule 
Fidei infallibili, a qua etiam ‘Sacra 
Scriptura robur trahit et auctoritatem, 
hereticus est.—Et passim. | 





ΟΡ. 
LOY 





Nomen 
sive vox 
transub- 
stantia- 
tionis. 


Res sive 
sententia 
ipsa. 


- 


54 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


substantiam convertere possit, nemo tamen (quamdiu sub- 
stantiam panis superstitem et incolumem sensibus percipit) 
id factum a Christo sibi persuadebit. Hactenus quidem 
nihil simile factum fuisse legimus, vel sub Veteri, vel sub 
Novo, Dei Testamento. Quapropter hoc dogma, non minus 
toti antiquitati incognitum, quam ab universa S. Scriptura 
alienum, heeret adhuc ad scopulos incredibilitatis; nec a 
nobis fidem illud impetrare zquum est, quod, a nuperis 
hominibus non ita pridem excogitatum, pro articulo Fidei et 
religionis Christiane obtrusum esse noscitur. Nam in 
Scripturis Sacris adducendis, ad stupendam hance illorum 
doctrinam suffulciendam, omnino frustra sunt; et verum non 
est, quod toties miré confidentii) depredicant, universam 
semper Kcclesiam in eam doctrinam consensisse, que longo 
tempore fuit Kcclesiz penitus inaudita, et ante pauca de- 
mum szcula autoritate Papali, sub nominibus Lateran 
et Tridentine Synodi, comprobata:—id, quod secuturis 
jam capitibus demonstratum imus. 


CAPUT V. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATIONEM, NEC SECUNDUM VOCEM AUT NOMEN, NEC SECUN- 
DUM REM AUT SENTENTIAM, IN 5. SCRIPTURIS AUT ANTIQUIS ECCLESLE 
DOCTGRIBUS HABERI, IMO, CUM EISDEM PUGNARE, OSTENDITUR ; ATQUE 
ADEO DE FIDE NNO ESSE. 


I. Nomen Transubstantiationis ipsi etiam transubstan- 
tiatores concedunt ante XII. szeculum fuisse imauditum: 
tantum abest, ut vel in S. Scripturis, vel in antiquorum 
patrum monumentis, inveniri possit. Stephanus quidem 
Eduensis episcopus perhibetur hance vocem semel usurpasse ; 
et refertur ille a recentioribus quibusdam ad seculum X, sed 
sine testimonio vetustiorum. Nec dicit ille absolute, et 
simpliciter, panem transubstantiatum esse, sed quasi tran- 
substantiatum ; quod sano sensu admitti potest @. 

II. Imo, rem ipsam sine nomine, sive sententiam sine 
voce creditam, non posse ex Scripturis probari, ingenue 


a Vide cap.i. ἢ. vi., cap. ili. ἢ. iv., cap. iv. n. v., et hoc ipsum cap. n. v. 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 55 


fassi sunt scholasticorum doctissimi, Scotus, Durandus, Biel, 
Cameracensis, Cajetanus, et alii non pauci; qui tamen illam, 
authoritate papali post annos mille et ducentos introductam, 
atque in Ecclesid Romani receptam, alias defensitare sate- 
gerunt. 

Ill. “Non exstare locum ullum Scripture tam ex- 
pressum, ut sine Ecclesiz” (Romanz) “declaratione” (id 
est, Papz Innocenti III. in congregatione sud Laterana) 
“evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere,’ dixit 
Scotus». “ Verbum audiri, sed ex verbo modum hunce sciri,” 
negavit Durandus*. ‘ Neutiquam inveniri in canone Bibli- 
orum,” scripsit Biel®. “ Substantiam panis manere, rationa- 
bilius et facilius esse ad tenendum, imo minoribus incom- 
modis obnoxium, et sacris Scripturis minus repugnare,” affir- 
mavit Occamus®; et post eum Cardinalis Cameracensis‘, qui 


> Scotus in iv. Sent., dist. xi. queest. 
3. [Hee non suntipsissima Scoti verba; 
qui tamen non aliud adhibet argumen- 
tum. Vid. Joan. Duns Scoti op., ed. 
Lugd. 1639, tom. viii. pp. 606, 607, 
616, 618, 619.—§ 5. Tertio sic: nihil 
est tenendum, tanquam de substantia 
Fidei, nisi quod potest expresse haberi 
de Scriptura, vel expresse declaratum 
est per Ecclesiam, vel evidenter sequitur 
ex aliquo plane contento in Scriptura, 
vel plane determinato ab Ecclesia ... 

§ 7. Pro opinione secunda (i. e. non 
manere panem, &c.) potest argui.... 
tertio, quia ista transubstantiatio non 
videtur magis probari ex Scripturis, 
quam panem non manere, imo minus... 

§ 13. Nune autem ipsa (sancta Ro- 
mana Ecclesia) tenet panem transub- 
stantiari in Corpus, et vinum in San- 
UICC Ce ee ett eet a o's 

§ 15. Dicendum, quod Ecclesia de- 
claravit istum intellectum esse de veri- 
tate Fidei, in illo symbolo edito sub 
Innocent. III. in concilio Lateranensi : 
“ Firmiter credimus,’ &c.... Et bre- 
viter, quidquid ibi dicitur esse creden- 
dum, tenendum est esse de substantia 
Fidei: et hoe post istam declarationem 
solemnem factam ab Ecclesia. Et, si 
queras quare voluit Ecclesia, &c.: . . 
dico, quod eo Spiritu exposite sunt 
Scripture, quo condite. Et ita sup- 
ponendum est, quod Ecclesia Catho- 
lica eo Spiritu exposuit, quo tradita est 
nobis Fides.—Conf. Bellarm. de Euch., 
lib. iii. cap. 23. §. Secundo dicit, infra 
citat. p. 57. not. k. ] 


¢ Durand., ut supr. [ Haud scio, an 
hee sint ipsa verba Durandi, cujus 
sententia autem minime dispar sic legi- 
tur: (Sentent. Theol., lib. iv. dist. xi. 
quest. 3. ὃ 5. ed. Lugd. 1787. pag. 717.) 

. . “ Idem factum quantum ad substan- 
tiam, sed diversum quantum ad modum 
faciendi. Pradictus autem modus con- 
versionis substantie panis in Corpus 
Christi constat quod est possibilis : 
alius autem modus, qui communius 
tenetur, est in-intelligibilis: nee unus 
istorum est magis per Ecclesiain ap- 
probatus, vel reprobatus, quam alius. 
Nec oportet difficultates Fidei difficul- 
tatibus superaddere, quin potius juxta 
documentum Scripture conandum est 
difficultates elucidare.’’—Vid. etiam 
queest. i. passim. | 

4 Biel, in can. Missa, lect. xl. [sub 
init., ed. Lugd. 1542. (5. p.)—Inqui- 
rendum est, qua mutatione incipit Cor- 


pus Christi esse in Sacramento. Circa 


quod notandum, quod, quamvis ex- 
presse tradatur in Scriptura quod Cor- 
pus Christi veraciter sub speciebus pa- 
nis continentur (continetur,) et a fide- 
libus sumitur, tamen, quo modo 
ibi sit Christi Corpus, an per conversi- 
onem alicujus in Ipsum, an sine con- 


versione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 


cum pane manentibus substantia et 
accidentibus panis, non invenitur ex- 
pressum in canone Bibliz. Unde de 
hoe antiquitus fuerunt diverse opinio- 
nes, ut recitat Magister, &c. | 

© Occamus, Centilii lib. iv. quest. 6. 
{conel. 39.—Vid. Guilhelmi de Ocham 


In 5. Li- 
teris non 
invenitur. 


56 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


fatetur itidem, “Transubstantiationem non posse probari ex 


Sacris Literis.”’ 


Quinetiam Cardinalis Roffensisg, ‘‘ Nullum 


in Scriptura verbum positum esse,” dixit, “quo probetur 


in Missi hane substantiz transmutationem fieri.” 


Item, 


Cajetanus Cardinalis: ‘ Non apparet” (inquit™) “ex Evan- 
gelio coactivum aliquod, ad intelligendum hee verba pro- 
prie,’ nempe, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM: 1π|οἷ, “ presentia illa 


Centilogium Theologicum, sub fin. lib. 
iv. Sentent., ut infra; ubi aliis quam 
que citat Cosinus verbis idem legitur 
argumentum.} [Et in iv. Sent. dist. 
xi. q. 6. [ed. Lugd. 1495, s. p—Quan- 
tum ad secundum dico, quod in Al- 
tari est vera transubstantiatio Corporis 
Christi: sed hoc potest multis modis 
poni: uno modo ponendo quod rema- 
neat ibi substantia panis, et cum hoc 
quod Corpus Christi coexistat sub- 
Stantizowillis ὍΣΟ ο΄. τ ase) 
Primus modus patet, quia hoc potest 
fieri per simplicem coexistentiam veri 
Corporis Christi substantiz panis, ὅσο. .. 
Primus modus potest teneri, quia non 
repugnat rationi, nec alicui auctori- 
tati Biblizw, et est rationabilior et fa- 
cilior ad tenendum inter omnes mo- 
dos; quia pauciora inconvenientia se- 
quuntur ex eo, quam ex aliquo alio 
modo; W&c. ] 

f Card. Camerac. iniv. ἃ. xi. q. 6. 
art. 1, 2. [Vid. Questiones Petri 
de Alliaco, Card. Camerac., super 
primum, tertium, et quartum Senten- 
tiarum, ed. 8vo. Par. 5. a. fol. 265 b.— 
Quarta opinio et communior est, quod 
substantia panis non remanet, sed sim- 
pliciter desinit esse: cujus pessibilitas 
patet, quia non est Deo impossibile, 
quod illa substantia subito desinat esse, 
quamvyis non esset possibile creata vir- 
tute. Et, licet ita esse non sequatur 
evidenter ex Scriptura, nec etiam vi- 
dere meo ex determinatione Ecclesiz, 
quia tamen magis favet ei, et communi 
opinioni sanctorum et doctorum, ideo 
teneo eam. ] 

δ Lib. contra Luth. de capt. Baby- 
lon. ec. i. [cap. x.—Joh. Fischerii ΟΡ.» 
ed. Wirceburgi 1597, col. 227.—Sed 
prius illud aggrediamur et doceamus, 
quod citra patrum interpretationem, et 
usum nobis ab eisdem traditum, nemo 
probabit ex ipsis nudis Evangelii verbis 
sacerdotem quempiam his temporibus 
veram Christi Carnem et Sanguinem 
consecrare. Non, quod res hee jam 
ambigua sit, sed quod ejus certitudo 
non tam habeatur ex verbis Evangelii, 


quam ex patrum (ut diximus) inter- 
pretatione, simul et usu tanti temporis 
quem illi posteris reliquerunt.—(Tunc, 
post consecrationis verba:) Hactenus 
Matthzus, qui et solus Testamenti Novi 
meminit. Neque ullum hie verbum 
positum est, quo probetur in nostra 
missa veram fieri Carnis et Sanguinis 
Christi preesentiam. | 

h Cajet, in Th. p. 3. q.75. art. i. [ Vid. 
S. Thome Aquin. Par. iii. cum eom- 
mentariis Card. Cajetani, ed. fol. (black 
letter) Bonon. 1528, fol. 301; unde re- 
petita sunt hee verba, que desunt ad 
ed. Venet. 1596. Totum sic se habet 
Cajetani argumentum: ... “ Sciendum 
est ex auctoritate Sacre Scripture, de 
existentia Corporis Christi in sacra- 
mento Eucharistie nihil aliud haberi 
expresse nisi verbum Salvatoris dicen- 
tis, Hoc est Corpus Meum: oportet 
enim verba hee vera esse. Et, quo- 
niam verba Sacre Scripture expo- 
nuntur dupliciter, (vel proprie, vel 
metaphorice,) primus error circa hoe 
fuit interpretantium hee Domini ver- 
ba metaphorice: quem Magister Sent. 
di. xi. lib. iv. tractat; qui et in hoe 
articulo reprobatur. Et consistit vis 
reprobationis in hoc, quod verba Do- 
mini intellecta sunt ab Ecclesia pro- 
prie: et propterea oportet illa verba 
verificari proprie. Dico autem ab Ec- 
clesia, quoniam non apparet ex Evangelio 
coactivum aliquod ad intelligendum hee 
verba proprie.’’ | 

i Ibid. q. 45. art. 14. [Hie locus 
falso citatur : etenim nullus est arti- 
culus xiv. Vid. autem quest. 75. art. 
i., ubi supra.—Habemus igitur ex veri- 
tate verborum Domini in sensu pro- 
prio, Corpus Christi veraciter esse in 
Eucharistia; et hoe est primum, quod 
ex Eyangelio habemus circa hoc sacra- 
mentum. Alterum autem, quod Evan- 
gelium non explicavit expresse, ab 
Ecclesia accepimus, sc. conversionem 
panis in Corpus Christi.—Item, art. 4, 
ubi supr. fol. 306. Titulus intelligitur 
de conversione substantiali, qué panis 
substantialiter sumptus transubstanti- 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIX®. 57 


in Sacramento, quam tenet” Romana “ Ecclesia, ex his ver- 
bis Christi non potest demonstrari, nisi etiam accesserit” 
Romane “ Ecclesiz declaratio.”” Denique, ipse etiam Cardi- 
nalis Bellarminus* ait, quod, “ quamvis Scripturam addux- 
erit, que ipsi satis clara ad probandam transubstantiationem 
videatur homini non protervo, tamen an ita sit merito dubi- 
tari potest, quum homines doctissimi atque acutissimi, qualis 
cum primis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant.’”’ Protestantes 
vero nihil aliud postulant, quam ut cum hisce doctissimis et 
acutissimis viris sentire sibi liceat. 

IV. Ipsa sane institutionis verba, panem esse, quicum 
exhibetur Corpus Domini, (estque eadem ratio, si vinum et 
Sanguinem attendamus,) manifeste eis ostendunt, qui veritati 
cedere, quam contentioni indulgere, malunt ; nempe Christi 
verba sunt, (postquam panem accepisset, benedixisset, fre- 
gisset :) ‘Hoc est Corpus meum;’ verba vero Apostoli, (quo 
nemo melius mentem Christi explicare potuit :) “ Panis quem 
frangimus est κοινωνία Corporis Christi,’—id est!, exhibitio 
Corporis Christi, qui fideles ejusdem Corporis participes 
fiunt. Panem esse, qui porrigebatur, nihil opus erat ulterius 
indicari, (id enim accipientium sensibus patebat;) at una 
dari Corpus Christi,—de eo nemini constare potuisset, nisi 
ipse indicasset qui neminem unquam fefellit. Quanquam 
autem, ex institutione Divina et explicatione apostolica, 
unusquisque fidelium, panem benedictum comedens, non 
magis an Corpus Domini comedat dubitare debet, quam si 
panem in Corpus Domini substantialiter conversum esse 
sciret,—non tamen propterea sequitur, panem ita conversum 
-esse, ut secundum substantiam suam esse desinat, incipiatque 
presens esse nihil aliud, quam ipsissimum naturale Corpus 
Christi ex pane factum. Certum enim est, non alid ratione 
panem esse Corpus Christi, quam qui poculum est novum 


atur in Corpus Christi: sic enim Ec- supra adduximus, videatur nobis tam 


clesia intelligit conversionem. ] 

κ De Euch., lib. iii. cap. 23. ὃ. Se- 
cundo dicit. [Vid. Bellarm. op., ed. 
TIngolst. 1601, tom. iii. col. 752.—Se- 
cundo dicit (Scotus) non extare locum 
ullum Scripture tam expressum, ut 
sine Ecclesie declaratione evidenter 
cogat transubstantiationem admittere. 
Atque id non est omnino improbabile. 
Nam etiamsi Scriptura, quam nos 





clara, ut possit cogere hominem non 
protervum, tamen an ita sit merito du- 
bitari potest, cum homines doctissimi 
et acutissimi, qualis imprimis Scotus 
fuit, contrarium sentiant. } 

1 {In MS. Dunelm. pro “id est, ex- 
hibitio... fiunt,” legitur: ‘i.e. me- 
dium, sacramentum, sive organum, cu- 
jus interventu Corpus Christi nobis 
communicatur. Panem esse,’ &Xc. } 





Institutio- 
nis verba. 


Prisce 
Ecclesize 
doctores. 


58 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


testamentum, nec aliam ex illd, aliam ex isté enunciatione, 
posse elici consequentiam. Quocirca, cum poculum nonnisi 
sacramentali metonymia possit esse illud testamentum, pla- 
num fit, nec panem aliter esse posse Corpus Christi. 

V. Quod vero aiunt Bellarminus aliique™, fieri non posse 
ut verba illa Christi sint vera, nisi per conversionem, quam 
Ecclesia Romana transubstantiationem vocat,—id tantum a 
veritate abest, ut, si admittatur, non solum tollat potentiam 
divinam, (quasi Deus non possit facere, ut remanente sub- 
stantia panis Corpus Christi preesens sit, et vere exhibeatur 
in hoe Sacramento,) sed etiam evertat veram naturam, tum 
benedictionis divinz que res conservat, tum ipsius Sacra- 
menti quod ex duobus constat, tum denique Corporis et 
Sanguinis Domini, que ex pane et vino a sacerdotibus for- 
mari, non sine maxima et stupendd prorsus audacia, di- 
cuntur. Sed veritas verborum Christi satis sibi constat 
absque tantarum veritatum dispendio. Pone testatorem 
tabulas vel codicillos de manu sud in heredis manus tra- 
dentem, additis hisce verbis, ‘ Accipe domum quam tibi relin- 
quo :—nemo quidem existimaturus esset chartaceum illud 
instrumentum esse ipsissimam domum ligneam aut saxeam ; 
neque tamen quisquam propterea testatorem obscure vel 
falso locutum putaret. Ad eundem plane modum Christus 
sacra symbola, verbis Suis et precibus sanctificata, tanquam 
sigilla Novi Testamenti tabulis appensa, Suis discipulis tra- 
didit ; quibus illi de bonis ab Ipso relictis non minus certi 
redditi sunt, quam filii de terreni patris hereditate per 
instrumentum a notario confectum, aut mant propria exa- 
ratum. 

VI. Sacris literis addamus prisce Ecclesiz judicium. 
Habemus enim ipsos primos religionis nostrze sanctos, et 
incorruptos antistites, primaque Ecclesiz Catholice lumina ; 
qui explicaté sententia solam spiritualem et mysticam pree- 
sentiam Corporis Christi in Eucharistid, magno, communi, 
et constanti consensu, professi sunt. De panis autem et 
vini substantia penitus abolita, sive de novo isto et peregrino 
transubstantiationis dogmate, ne quidem vel audiverunt 
quicquam, vel omnino locuti sunt; imo, patrum universorum 


m Ubi supra. [ Vid. cap. iv. num. vii. ] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTILE. 59 


doctrina ei perspicue et constanter adversatur, quicquid 
pre se ferant pontificii in contrarium. Sed, si lubeat sin- 
gulos audire, eorum ego aliquot illustriora loca (quoniam 
omnia in immensam nimis catervam excrescerent) strictim 
nominabo. 

VII. Ordiar ab ipso sanctissimo martyre Justino, scrip- 
tore vetustissimo ; qui post apostolica tempora inter primos 
eorum est, quorum indubitata scripta ad nos pervenerunt. 
Que autem doctrina de mysterio S. Cone, ejus tempore, 
tum Rome tum alibi fuerit, non obscure ex his verbis ° intel- 
ligitur: “ Postquam preses gratias egit, et acclamavit popu- 
lus, illi qui a nobis dicuntur diaconi, seu ministri, dant cui- 
que preesentium quod sumant de pane et vino; et hoe ali- 
mentum a nobis vocatur Eucharistia: ... non enim ut vul- 
garem panem, neque ut vulgare poculum, hec sumimus.’”’— 
Ut panem sumunt, sed non ut communem. Et paulo post: 
* Per hanc alimoniam sanguis et caro nostra per mutationem 
nutriuntur ; eamque Jesu Christi carnem et Sanguinem esse 
didicimus.”” Quare et substantia panis etiam post conse- 
crationem manet, et vere corruptibilis cibus est; quod de 
Christi Corpore immortali dici non potest: neque enim Caro 
Christi carnem nostram alit, nec in eam mutatur; sed cibus 
iste qui sacramentaliter Caro Christi dicitur. Caro autem 
Christi animas nostras nutrit in vitam ternam. 

VIII. Ad eundem modum scripsit Sanctus Irenzus, 
martyr itidem, et ejusdem seeculi episcopus. ‘Panis” (inquit?) 
“qui est a terra, percipiens invocationem Dei, jam non com- 
munis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, 


ἃ [Contigit Justini martyrium... - 
ann. Chr. 165.—Vid. Cave, tom. i. p. 
61.] 

9. Apolog. ii. ad Antoninum Imp. 
prope finem. [ Vid. Apol. i. § 65, 66, 
ap.Justin. Mart. op., ed. Ben. Par. 1742. 
p- 838. ---εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προ- 
εστῶτος, καὶ εὐφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ 
λαοῦ, οἱ καλούμενοι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν διάκονοι 
διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλα- 
βεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ 
οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν 
ἀποφέρουσι" καὶ ἣ τρυφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται 
παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία, fs οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ 
μετασχεῖν ἐξόν ἐστιν, ἢ τῷ πιστεύοντι 
ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὰ δεδιδαγμένα ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, 
καὶ λουσαμένῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀφέσεως ἄμαρ- 
τιῶν καὶ εἰς ἀναγέννησιν λουτρὸν, καὶ 


οὕτως βιοῦντι ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς παρέδωκεν. 
οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον, οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα, 
ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν" ἀλλ᾽ ὃν τρόπον διὰ 
λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς Ἰησοῦς Χρισ- 
Tos, 6 Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα 
ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ 
τὴν SC εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐ- 
χαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ ἣς αἷμα καὶ 
σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, 
ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ 
σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι. | 

P Lib. iv. cont. Her. 6. 34. [3]. cap. 
xviii. ὃ 5.—S. Irenzi op., ed. Ben. Par. 
1710. p. 251.—as yap amd γῆς ἄρτος 
προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐ- 
χαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστη- 
κυῖα, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου. 


CEASE: 
Ng 


Justinus 
Martyr®, 
A.D. 144. 


S. Irenzus 
A.D. 160. 


Tertullia- 
nus A.D. 
200. 


60 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


terrena et ccelesti.” Si vero substantia panis tollatur, tollitur 
quod terrenum est. Iterum4: “ Quemadmodum granum tri- 
tici, decidens in terram, et dissolutum, multiplex surgit, . . . 
et percipiens verbum Dei fit Kucharistia, (quod est Corpus 
et Sanguis Christi,) sic et nostra corpora, ex eo nutrita, et 
reposita in terram, ac resoluta, resurgent in suo tempore.” 
Iterum’: “ Per creaturam nutrimur; creaturam autem Ipse 
nobis prestat....Eum calicem, qui est creatura, Suum 
Sanguinem, et eum panem, qui est creatura, Suum Corpus 
confirmavit. ... Quando ergo calix et panis percipiunt ver- 
bum Dei, fit Eucharistia Sanguinis et Corporis Christi; ex 
quibus augetur et consistit carnis nostre substantia.” Ham 
autem nutriri vel augeri vero et naturali Corpore Christi, 
non sine magni impietate ab ipsis transubstantiatioribus 
diceretur. Nihil enim naturaliter corpus nostrum nutrit, 
nisi quod per alterationem in carnem nostram et sanguinem 
convertitur ; quod de Corpore Christi incorruptibili affirmare 
blasphemum est. Interim tamen symbola, que suo modo 
et sunt et dicuntur Corpus et Sanguis Christi, ita corporibus 
nostris nutrimentum et augmentum suppeditant per res 
terrenas, ut etiam propter res ipsas ccelestes, que median- 
tibus terrenis a fidelibus percipiuntur, corpora nostra idonea 
reddunt ad beatam resurrectionem et immortalitatis glo- 
riam. 

IX. Tertullianus, qui circa annum ducentesimum floruit, 
cum adhue Catholicus ardentissimi zeli plenus esset, scripsit 
contra Marcionem hereticum, qui (inter alia nefanda dog- 
mata) docuit etiam Christum e Virgine Marii non ipsam 
humani corporis naturam atque substantiam, sed externas 


4 Lib. v. c. 12. [eap. 2. in MSS.— 
Vid. c. ii. § 3, ubi supra, p. 294.---καὶ 


¥ Ibidem. [Vid. § 2, 3, ubi supr.— 


ἐπειδὴ μέλη αὐτοῦ ἐσμέν, καὶ διὰ τῆς 


ὅνπερ τρόπον τὸ ξύλον τοῦ ἀμπέλου κλι- 
θὲν εἰς τὴν γῆν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ἐκαρποφό- 
pnoe, καὶ ὃ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου πεσὼν εἰς 
τὴν γῆν καὶ διαλυθεὶς πολλοστὸς ἔγέρθη, 
διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ συνέ- 
χοντος τὰ πάντα, ἔπειτα δὲ διὰ τῆς σο- 
φίας τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς χρῆσιν ἐλθόντα ἂν- 
θρώπων, καὶ προσλαμβανόμενα τὸν λόγον 
τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐχαριστία γίνεται, ὕπερ ἐστὶ 
σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὕτως καὶ 
τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα et αὐτῆς τρεφόμενα, 
καὶ τεθέντα εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ διαλυθέντα 
ἐν αὐτῇ, ἀναστήσεται ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ. 


κτίσεως τρεφόμεθα, τὴν δὲ κτίσιν ἡμῖν 
αὐτὸς παρέχει, τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλ- 
λων καὶ βρέχων, καθὼς βούλεται. τὸ 
ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον, αἷμα ἴδιον 
ὡμολόγησεν, ἐξ οὗ τὸ ἡμέτερον δεύει 
αἷμα, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον, 
ἴδιον σῶμα διεβεβαιώσατο, ad’ οὗ τὰ 
ἡμέτερα αὔξει σώματα. ὅπότε οὖν καὶ 
τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον, καὶ 6 γεγονὼς 
ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
καὶ γίνεται ἣ εὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ, 
ἐκ τούτων δὲ αὔξει καὶ συνίσταται ἣ τῆς 
σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασι».] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTLE. 61 


duntaxat ejus formas et species, assumpsisse; ex quo fonte 
transubstantiatores Romani suam de accidentibus, a sub- 
jecto abstractis et in aere pendentibus, doctrinam omnino 
hausisse videntur. Contra hane detestandam heeresim dis- 
putans Tertullianus*, atque argumentum petens a Sacra- 
mento Eucharistiz, Christum non phantasticum, sive imagi- 
narium, sed verum et naturale Corpus habuisse, ad hunc 
modum probat: Figura corporis corpus naturale arguit ; 
spectri enim seu phantasmatis nulla est figura. At (inquit) 
Christus “acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, Cor- 
pus Suum illum fecit dicendo, ‘Hoc est Corpus Meum,’— 
id est, figura Corporis Mei: figura vero non fuisset, nisi 
veritatis fuisset' Corpus. Res enim vacua, ut? est phantas- 
ma, figuram capere non potest.” Hujus argumenti pars 
quzeque vera est, et necessariam rationis consecutionem con- 
tinet. Primo enim oportet panem manere panem; alioqul, 
retorto argumento, dixisset Marcion non esse panem, sed 
mera panis accidentia, que panis esse videbantur: (sicut 
respondent transubstantiatores.) Secundo, Corpus Christi 
exponitur per veri illius Corporis figuram, que pani attri- 
buitur. Est enim panis aptus representare Corpus Domini, 
propter alendi vim, que illi terrena imest, huic ccelestis. 
Tertio denique veritas Corporis eo probatur, quod vera et 
substantiali figuri representetur; quum, sublata (prout 
pontificii volunt) panis substantid, ipsa quoque Corporis 
Christi veritas in sacramento destruitur. 

X. Origenes Tertulliani equalis non dissimilem habet 
locutionem. ‘Quod si” Christus, (ait',) “ut obloquuntur 
_isti” (Marcionistz,) “carne destitutus erat, et exsanguis,— 
cujusmodi Carnis, cujus Corporis, et qualis tandem Sanguinis, 
signa et imagines panem et poculum ministravit ?” Si signa 
sunt et imagines Corporis ac Sanguinis Christi, icet eum 
vere Corpus et Sanguinem habuisse probent, tamen, quia 
signa sunt, non ipsa sunt; et, quia ipsa non sunt, transub- 
stantiationis figmento apertissime contradicitur. Idem, in Le- 

5. Contra Marcion., lib.iv.c.40.[Ter- Orig. op., ed. Ben. Par. 1733, tom. i. p. 
tulliani op., ed. Rigalt. Lut. Par. 1664, 853.—ei δ᾽, ὡς οὗτοί φασιν, ἄσαρκος 
pp- 457, 458. ] καὶ ἄναιμος ἦν, ποίας σαρκὸς, ἢ Tivos 

t Dial. iii. de Hom. Christo, contr. σώματος, ἢ ποίου αἵματος εἰκόνας διδοὺς, 


Marcionistas. [Vid. Adamantii Dia- ἄρτον τε καὶ ποτήριον ἐνετέλλετο τοῖς 
log. de recta in Deum fide, sect. ἱν.-- μαθηταῖς ; k.7.A.] 


11 “esset.”’ ] 
2[ “quod.” } 


Origenes 
A. 220. 


CAP. 
ὟΣ 





5. Cypria- 
nus A.250. 


62 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


viticum, transubstantiationi disertissime adversatur: “ Agnos- 
cite” (inquit") “ quia figuree sunt ; et ideo tanquam spirituales, 
non carnales, examinate et intelligite que dicuntur: sin 
quasi carnales accipitis, ledunt vos et non alunt. Est enim 
in Evangelio litera, que oceidit eum qui non spiritualiter, 
que dicit, ea advertit. Si enim secundum literam sequeris 
hoc ipsum quod dictum est, ‘Nisi manducaveritis Carnem 
Meam, et biberitis Sanguinem Meum,’ occidet hee litera.” 
Quatenus ergo ad Corporis et Sanguinis Christi manduca- 
tionem hee verba referuntur, mystice et spiritualiter intelli- 
genda sunt. Iterum,in S. Matthzum scribens*, verum et 
immortale Christi Corpus a corpore Illius typico et sym- 
bolico diserte secernit: sacramentum enim ex utroque con- 
stat. ““Π|6 cibus” (inguit) “qui sanctificatur per ver- 
bum Dei et preces, juxta id quod habet materiale, ΠΥ ven- 
trem abit et im secessum ejicitur.” Et hc quidem ait de 
typico symbolicoque corpore. Absit enim, ut verum illud 
et celeste Christi Corpus m secessum ejici sentiamus ; 
quod tamen fateri necesse est, si id Christi Corpus naturale 
sit, quod symbolicum corpus et materiale in Eucharistid 
vocat Origenes. Nam ista sola accidentia esse nemo sanus 
dixerit. 

XI. Sanctus Cyprianus Carthaginensis episcopus, et glo- 
riosissimus Christi martyr, de sacramento Dominici cali- 
cis illustrem ad Cecilium conscripsit epistolam, cujus hee 


« Hom. vii. in Levit. [ὃ 5.—Op., 
tom. 11, p. 225; ubi ipsissima verba 


manu Cosini scripta, verumtamen 
rubrica obliterata, hee sunt que se- 


sunt: ‘ Agnoscite quia figure sunt, 
que in divinis voluminibus scripta 
sunt: et ideo tanquam spiritales, et 
non tanquam carnales, examinate et 
intelligite quz dicuntur. Si enim quasi 
earnales ista suscipitis, ledunt vos, et 
non alunt. Est enim et in Evangelio 
litera que occidit : non solum in Veteri 
Testamento occidens litera deprehen- 
ditur. Est et in Novo Testamento 
litera quz occidat eum qui non spiri- 
tualiter que dicuntur adverterit. Si 
enim secundum literam sequaris hoc 
ipsum quod dictum est :—‘ Nisi man- 
ducaveritis Carnem Meam, et biberitis 
Sanguinem Meum ;’—occidit hee li- 
ἴοχα 

* In cap. xv. S. Matt. [Margine 
manuscripti Dunelm. post hane notam 


quuntur verba: “ Habetur istius com- 
mentarii exemplar Grzeeum in Biblio- 
theca Regine Suzciz, unde mihi ho- 
rum verborum copia facta est. Inve- 
niuntur etiam hee eadem verba Grece 
in exemplari ejusdem commentarii, 
quod asservatur in bibl. regia Parisiis ; 
contra quam Perronius Card. affir- 
mavit.”’—Vid. Orig. op., tom. ili. p. 
499.—ei δὲ πᾶν τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς 
τὸ στόμα εἰς κοιλίαν χωρεῖ, καὶ εἰς ἀφε- 
δρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται, καὶ τὸ ἁγιαζόμενον 
βρῶμα διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως, 
κατ᾽ αὐτὸ μὲν τὸ ὑλικὸν, εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν 
χωρεῖ, καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται. | 

Υ Indigne faciunt, qui propter hee 
verba Origenem inter Stercoranistas 
hereticos numerant. 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI&. 63 


summa est?: “ Ut calix, qui in commemoratione(m) Christi 
offertur', mixtus vino offeratur ;” (contra sententiam Aqua- 
riorum :) “ubi enim” (inquit) “vimum non est in calice, 
Sanguis Christi non potest exprimi; quia videmus in vino 
Sanguinem Christi ostendi, sicut in aqui populus fidelium 
intelligitur.” At transubstantiatoribus pontificiis neque 
aqua neque vinum est in calice oblato; absque quibus 
(vino prasertim, quod erat elementum a Domino nostro 
institutum, et de quo Cyprianus przcipue loquitur,) ne 
sacramentaliter quidem presens est Christi Sanguis: tan- 
tum abest, ut de corporali illius presentid, vino penitus 
amoto, et ad nihilum redacto, (hoc est, ad accidens sine sub- 
jecto,) quicquam omnino crediderit prisca Christi Ecclesia ; 
que non magis vinum in Sanguinem, quam aquam in popu- 
lum, transubstantiari dixisset. Sed non est, quod multa ex 
hoc patre adducam testimonia, quum omnia ejus scripta 
plenissime ostendant in Eucharistid veram panis et vini sub- 
stantiam exhiberi, ut similitudo alimenti vivifici, quod a 
fidelibus ex Corpore et Sanguine Christi percipitur, atque 
adunatio totius populi in unum Corpus congregati, recte suo 
respondeat sacramento. 

XII. Nota sunt illa Niceni Concilii verba, quibus fideles, a 


visibilibus illis et naturalibus panis et vini elementis, aperte a 


revocantur ad internum et spiritualem mentis aspectum 
quo Christus apprehenditur. ‘“ Ne” (inquiunt*) “ proposito 
pani et poculo humiliter intenti simus, sed sublata in altum 
mente per fidem consideremus proponi in sacra ill4 mensa 
Agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi; .. . et pretiosum 


* Lib. 11. Ep. iii, sive Ep. lxiii. in scriptis. [Vid. Gelasii Cyziceni Hist. 





edit. Pamel. [Vid. 5. Cypr. op., ed. 
Oxon. 1682, pp. 148, 154.—Ut calix, 
qui in commemoratione Ejus offertur, 
mixtus vino offeratur. Nam, cum di- 
cat Christus, ‘Ego sum Vitis vera,’ 
Sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, 
sed vinum. Nec potest videri Sanguis 
Fijus, quo redempti et vivificati sumus, 
esse in calice, quando vinum desit 
ealici quo Christi Gang ostenditur, 
Ric Ne saith eats - + Quando au- 
tem in calice vino aqua miscetur, 
Christo populus adunatur, et creden- 
tium plebs Hi, in quem credidit, copula- 
tur et conjungitur. } 

* In Actis ibid. a Gelas, Cyzic. con- 


Cone. Nicen., cap. xxx. §. De Divina 
Mensa, &c.; Labbe, tom. ii. col. 234.— 
ἐπὶ τῆς θείας τραπέζης πάλιν κἀνταῦθα 
μὴ τῷ προκειμένῳ ἄρτῳ καὶ τῷ ποτηρίῳ 
ταπεινῶς προσέχωμεν" GAN ὑψώσαντες 
ἡμῶν τὴν διάνοιαν πίστει νοήσωμεν κεῖσ- 
θαι ἐπὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐκείνης πραπέζης τὸν 
᾿Αμνὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν αἴροντα τὴν ἅμαρ- 
τίαν τοῦ κόσμου, ἀθύτως ὑπὸ τῶν ἱερέων 
θυόμενον" καὶ τὸ τίμιον αὐτοῦ σῶμα καὶ 
αἷμα ἀληθῶς λαμβάνοντας ἡμᾶς πιστεύ- 
ew ταῦτα εἶναι τὰ τῆς. ἡμετέρας ἀναστά- 
σεως σύμβυλα. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ οὔτε πολὺ 
λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὀλίγον, ἵνα γνῶμεν 
ὅτι οὐκ εἰς πλησμονὴν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἅγιασ- 


dv. | 


CAP. 
ὟΣ 


1 Populo, 
scilicet, 


Concil. 
cen. I. 
A. 325. 


S. Athana- 
sius, A. 
330. 


64 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPERITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


Ejus Corpus ac Sanguinem vere accipientes, nos credamus 
hzee esse nostre resurrectionis symbola. Nam ideo etiam 
non multum, sed parum, accipimus, ut agnoscamus quod 
non ad satietatem, sed ad sanctificationem, accipiatur.”” Quis 
vero hoc, “non multum, sed parum,” etiam inter ipsos 
transubstantiatores, de Corpore Christi dictum esse intel- 
ligat ? aut quis credat Corpus et Sanguinem Ejus a patribus 
Nicenis proprie vocata esse symbola; quum nulla res sui 
ipsius symbolum aut signum esse possit? Quamvis, igitur, 
in symbolis propositis sistendum non sit, (oportet enim 
attendere ad id, quod in sacramento precipuum est, ut 
“sursum corda” habeamus ad Dominum, qui cum eisdem 
symbolis simul exhibetur,) symbola tamen sunt, et terrena 
pars sacramenti, tam panis quam poculum: quod transub- 
stantiationem jugulat. 

XIII. Sanctus Athanasius, qui Niceni Concilii tempore 
floruit, eidemque interfuit, vir, si quis alius, Catholice Fidei 
per omnia tenacissimus, non aliam in Eucharistid Corporis 
Christi manducationem agnovit, quam spiritualem. “ Domi- 
nus” (inquit>) “spiritum a carne discriminavit, ut discere- 
mus ea, que loqueretur, non carnalia esse, sed spiritualia. 
Quot enim hominibus Corpus Ejus suffecisset ad cibum, ut 
universi mundi alimonia fieret? Sed propterea ascensionis 
Suze in celum mentionem fecit, ut eos a corporali intellectu 
abstraheret, ac deinde Carnem Suam, de qua locutus erat, 
cibum e supernis ccelestem, et spiritualem alimoniam (καὶ 
πνευματικὴν τροφὴν,) ab Ipso donandum intelligerent: ‘Qui 
enim locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt ;’—quod perinde 
est ac si diceret, Corpus Meum quod ostenditur, et datur 
pro mundo, in cibum dabitur, ut spiritualiter (πνευματικῶς) 


®> In illud Evang. “ Quicunque 
dixerit verbum,’’ &c. Etine. vi. S. 
Joh. ** Qui manducat Carnem Meam,”’ 
&e. [Vid. S. Athanasii Epist. iv. ad 
Serapionem, § 19.—Op., ed. Ben. 
Par. 1698, tom. i. par. ii. pag. 710.— 
τὸ πνεῦμα πρὸς TO κατὰ σάρκα διέστει- 
λεν, ἵνα μὴ μόνον τὸ φαινόμενον, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ τὸ ἀόρατον αὐτοῦ πιστεύσαντες μά- 
θωσιν, ὅτι καὶ ἃ λέγει οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὰ, 
ἀλλὰ πνευματικά. πόσοις γὰρ ἤρκει τὸ 
σῶμα πρὸς βρῶσιν, ἵνα καὶ τοῦ κόσμου 
παντὺς τοῦτο τροφὴ γένηται; ἀλλὰ διὰ 


τοῦτο τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβάσεως ἐμνη- 
μόνευσε τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα τῆς 
σωματικῆς ἐννοίας αὐτοὺς ἀφελκύσῃ, 
καὶ λοιπὸν τὴν εἰρημένην σάρκα βρῶσιν 
ἄνωθεν οὐράνιον καὶ πνευματικὴν τρο- 
φὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ διδομένην μάθωσιν. ἃ 
γὰρ λελάληκα, φησὶν, ὑμῖν, πνεῦμά ἐστι 
καὶ Con’ ἧσον τῷ εἰπεῖν, τὸ μὲν δεικνύμε- 
νον καὶ διδόμενον ὑπὲρ τοῦ κόσμου δοθή- 
σεται τροφὴ, ὡς πνευματικῶς ἐν ἑκάστῳ 
ταύτην ἀναδίδοσθαι, καὶ γίνεσθαι πᾶσι 
φυλακτήριον εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς αἰω- 
viov. | 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ£. 65 


unicuique tribuatur, et fiat singulis preeservatio ad resurrec- C A P. 
tionem vite sterne.” Quibus sanctissimi patris verbis _Y- 
quum nullum idoneum responsum regerendum esse videret 
Cardinalis Perronius‘’, totum tractatum tanquam despera- 
bundus respuit, et negavit esse Athanasii; quod ante eum 

fecit nemo. Nihil est enim cur improbetur. 

XIV. Proximus esto Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus episcopus, S. Cyrillus 
Sancti Athanasii coztaneus. Agens ille de chrismate, quo eat 
baptizati inungebantur, ita αἰ: ‘“Czeterum vide, ne illud A.D. 350. 
putes unguentum tantum. Quemadmodum enim panis Eu- 
charistiz, post S. Spiritis invocationem, non amplius est 
panis communis, sed est Corpus Christi, sic et sanctum hoc 
unguentum non est amplius unguentum nudum, neque 
commune, postquam consecratum est, sed est charisma 
Christi; quod adventu Spiritis S., per Ipsius divinitatem, 
energiam habet; . . . et corpus quidem unguento perun- 
gitur, anima vel Spiritu S. vivificoque sanctificatur.” Quid 
potest luculentius dici? Aut unguentum per consecrationem 
transubstantiatur in Spiritum et charisma Christi, aut panis 
et vinum per consecrationem non transubstantiantur in Cor- 
pus et Sanguinem Christi. Sicut itaque unguentum (ma- 
nens, quoad substantiam, unguentum) non tamen vocatur 
unguentum tantum, aut unguentum nudum et commune, 
sed jam est charisma Christi: sic panis et vinum (manens, 
quoad substantiam, panis et vinum) non tamen vocatur panis 
aut vinum tantum, sive nudus panis et vinum commune, sed 
jam est Corpus et Sanguis Christi. ‘Sub typo” (inquit®) 


© Del’ Euchar., liv. ii. Auth. x. ch. 


: ματος, οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτὸς, ἀλλὰ Σῶμα 
1. [ed. a Paris, 1622, f. 253, 257.— 


= ; x 
Χριστοῦ, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἅγιον τοῦτο μύρον 


La premiere, que |’ écrit dont il est 
pris n’est de sainct Athanase, mais 
faussement supposé et allegué sous son 
WOU ts sy Mais c’est trop 
employer de temps pour éclaircir une 
piece supposée et illegitime: car l’ecrit 
(scil. Tract. in vers. Evang. ‘ Qui- 
cunque dixerit verbum,’ &c., wt legitur 
in marg.) dont ce texte est pris, n’est 
ny de sainct Athanase, ny d’aucun 
autheur authentique. | 

4 Catech. [ xxi.] Myst. iii. [de sacro 
Chrismate, § 3.—S. Cyrill. Hier. op., 
ed. Ben. Par. 1720, p. 316.—aaa’ dpa 
μὴ ὑπονοήσῃς ἐκεῖνο τὸ μύρον ψιλὸν 
εἶναι" ὥσπερ γὰρ 6 ἄρτος τῆς εὐχαρισ- 
τίας, μετὰ τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ ἁγίου ΤΠιν εύ- 

COSIN. E 


οὐκ ἔτι ψιλὸν, οὐδ᾽, ὡς ἂν εἴποι Tis, κοινὸν 
μετ᾽ ἐπίκλησιν, ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ χάρισμα 
καὶ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου παρουσίᾳ τῆς αὐ- 
τοῦ θεότητος ἐνεργητικὸν γινόμενον" 
ὕπερ συμβολικῶς ἐπὶ μετώπον καὶ τῶν 
ἄλλων σου χρίεται, τῷ δὲ ἁγίῳ καὶ ζωο- 
ποιῷ Πνεύματι ἣ ψυχὴ ἁγιάζεται. καὶ 
τῷ μὲν φαινομένῳ μύρῳ τὸ σῶμα χρίεται, 
τῷ δὲ ἁγίῳ καὶ ζωοποιῷ Πνεύματι 7 ψυχὴ 
ἁγιάζεται. 

€ Catech. [xxii.] Mystag. iv. .[de 
Corp. et Sang. Dom, j—Aliud (inquit) 
gustat ibi corporeum palatum, aliud 
fides. [Vid. ὃ 3, ubi supr., p. 320.— 
ἐν τύπῳ yap ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι τὸ σῶμα, 
καὶ ἐν τύπῳ οἴνου δίδοταί σοι τὸ αἷμα. --- 
Item, ὃ 6. p. 521.-- μὴ ἀπὸ τῆς γεύσεως 


66 


DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


CAP. “panis datur tibi Corpus, et sub typo vini datur tibi San- 
“giles? quod captiose et mali fide Grodecius interpretatur’, 
“Sub specie panis,” et “Sub specie vini:”’ de speciebus 
enim, seu accidentibus sine subjecto existentibus, nihil un- 
quam Cyrillo, vel antiquorum cuiquam, in mentem venit. 

XV. Neque vero dissimilia sunt, que in Liturgid seu 
Anaphora S. Basilii leguntur. ‘“ Proposuimus,” (inquit®,) 
“‘typum Corporis et Sanguinis Christi;” quem, post conse- 
crationem, panem EHucharistiz appellat®. Si ¢ypus sit Cor- 
poris, certe ipsum Corpus non est, ita ut nihil aliud sit quam 
Corpus ; nam (uti modo diximus) nihil sui ipsius typus aut 
figura esse potest, non magis quam sui ipsius pater aut 


S. Basilius, 
A.D. 


360. 


filius esse potest. 


Preces etiam fiunt! in eidem Anaphora, 


“ut panis fiat Corpus Christi, in remissionem peccatorum 


vitamque eternam, 115 qui accipiunt.” 


Et quidem creden- 


tibus fit Corpus vivificum, quia illi panis ccelestis et Corporis 


Christi vere sunt participes. 


Altis vero, tam non recipien- 


tibus quam non credentibus, licet antitypon sit, tamen illis 


nequaquam est nec fit Corpus Christi. 


fide} Christum manducat. 


κρίνῃς TO πρᾶγμα, GAN ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως, 
κι τ. λ.} 

f [ Vid. Grodecii versionem, ap. Bib- 
lioth. S. Patr. per Marg. de la Bigne, 
ed. Par. 1589, tom. ii. col. 202; ubi 
verba sunt: “ Nam sub specie panis 
datur tibi Corpus, et sub specie vini 
datur Sanguis.’”’—Conf. vers. Bened., 
ap. ed. Ben. Par. 1720. p.320.—“< Nam 
in figura panis datur tibi Corpus, et in 
figura vini datur tibi Sanguis.”’ | 

§ Liturg. que eidem attribuitur. 
{ Vid. Anaphoram D. Basilii epise. 
Cesarez Cappadociz, ex vetustissimo 
codice Syriaca lingua et charactere 
seripto traductam per Andr. Masium; 
ap. Comment. de Paradiso a Mose Bar- 
Cepha Syro scriptum, ex Syr. ling. 
translatum per Andr. Masium, ed. 
Anty. 1569. p, 243.—Et qui proposui- 
mus typum Corporis et Sanguinis 
Christi Tui, adoramus ; ac supplices ro- 
gamus Te per bonitatis Tue benignita- 
tem, veniat Sanctus Tuus Spiritus super 
nos, et super hee qua proposuimus 
dona, et sanctificet ipsa.—Conf. Mis- 
sam §. Basilii, ap. Euchologium Ja- 
cobi Goar, ed. Lut. Par. 1647. pag. 
109.---προθέντες τὰ ἀντίτυπα τοῦ ἁγίου 
Σώματος καὶ Αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Σου, 


Nemo enim absque 


δεόμεθα, K.T.A.] 

h Lib. de Sp. Sancto. [ Vid. cap. 
xvii. § 66.—S. Basilii op., ed. Ben. Par. 
1730, tom. iii. pp. 54, δ5.---τὰ τῆς ἐπι- 
κλήσεως ῥήματα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναδείξει τοῦ ἄρ- 
του τῆς εὐχαριστίας, καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου 
τῆς εὐλογίας, τίς τῶν ἁγίων ἐγγράφως 
ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν ;—Vid. etiam 5, Ba- 
5111 Miss., ap. Jac. Goar, Eucholog. 
p- 166. ] 

i [Vid. Anaphoram 1). Basilii, ubi 
supr. p, 244,.—Effice panem istuim Cor- 
pus gloriosum Domini Dei nostri Jesu 
Christi, Corpus Celeste, Corpus vitae 
efficiens, Corpus pretiosum, in expia-~ 
tionem culparum, et remissionem pec- 
catorum, vitamque zternam, lis qui ac- 
cipiunt. Conf. 5. Basilii Liturg. Gree. 
—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1722, t. ii. append. 
p- 679.—O Ἱερεὺς expwvice’ Kal ποι- 
Hon τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον γίνεσθαι εἰς 
τὸ ἅγιον Swuu αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου δὲ καὶ 
Θεοῦ καὶ Swrijpos ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν τὴν αἰ- 
ὦνιον, τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ μεταλαμβάνουσιν. 
Ὁ λαὺς λέγει: ᾿Αμὴν. Ὃ Ἱερεὺς λέ- 
yeu’ Τὸ δὲ ποτήριον τοῦτο, τὸ τίμιον Ai- 
μα, κ-τ.λ.] 

} Idem, lib. de Bapt.—“ Credentes,”’ 
inquit, “‘ et manducantes.”’ [ Hec ipsis- 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZA. 67 


XVI. 5. Gregorius Nyssenus, S. Basilii frater, luculenter 
exprimit, qualis fiat in pane et vino per consecrationem 
mutatio. “Sicut altare”’ (inquit*) “natura est lapis com- 
munis, sed, Dei cultui consecratum, fit mensa sancta et 
altare immaculatum; ac sicut panis Eucharistiz initio est 
panis communis, sed, ubi eum mysterium sacrificaverit, Cor- 
pus Christi et dicitur, et est, et excellenter operatur; sicut 
etiam sacerdos (heri homo vulgaris) novitate benedictionis 
fit doctor pietatis, mysteriorum preesul, et (nihil corpore vel 
formi mutatus) invisibili quidam vi ac gratii animam in 
melius transformatam gerit: ita, simili consequentia rati- 
onum, etiam aqua, cum nihil aliud sit quam aqua, superna 
benedicente gratia, in eam que mente percipitur regenera- 
tionem hominem renovat.” Eant nunc transubstantiatores, 
et dicant vel lapidem in altare, hominem in sacerdotem, 
aquam in baptismum transubstantiari, vel panem in Corpus 
Christi non transubstantiari: nam Nysseno similis est per 
omnia consequentiz ratio. 

XVII. Ad eundem modum 8. Ambrosius, explicans muta- 5. Ambro- 
tionem panis, qualis illa sit, per quam in Eucharistié fit ae aoe 
Corpus Christi:—“ Tu ipse” (inquit') “ eras, sed eras vetus 
creatura: postquam consecratus es, nova creatura esse coe- 
pisti.” Qualis in Baptismo hominis, talis in Eucharistia 
panis, mutatio. Si non transubstantietur natura hominis 
per regenerationem, nec transubstantiatur panis per bene- 
dictionem. Fit homo per baptismum, non quod natura 


CAP. 
Ve 


S. Grego- 
rius Nys- 
senus, 


A.D. 370. 


sima verba non inventa sunt. Vid. 


δὲ τοῦ λόγου δύναμις καὶ τὸν ἱερέα ποιεῖ 
autem lib, i. cap. ii. § 10.—S. Basilii 


σεμνὺν καὶ τίμιον, TH καινότητι τῆς εὖὐ- 





op., tom. ii. append. p, 636.—Vid. etiam 
cap. i. § 3. p. 626; item, cap. iii. § 1. 
p. 649; et § 2. p. 650. ] 

* Orat. de S. Baptismo. [Orat. in 
Baptismum Christi—S. Greg. Nys- 
sen, op., ed. Par. 1688, tom. 111. pp. 
809, 371.—ére) καὶ τὸ θυσιαστή- 
ριον τοῦτο τὸ ἅγιον, ᾧ παρεστήκαμεν, 
λίθος ἐστὶ κατὸ τὴν φύσιν κοινὺς, οὐδὲν 
διαφέρων τῶν ἄλλων πλακῶν, αἵ τοὺς 
τοίχους ἡμῶν οἰκοδομοῦσι, καὶ καλλω- 
πίζουσι τὰ ἐδάφη" ἐπεὶ δὲ καθιερώθη τῇ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ θεραπείᾳ, καὶ τὴν εὐλογίαν 
ἐδέξατο, ἐστὶ τράπεζα ἁγία, θυσιαστήριον 
ἄχραντον" . .. -. 6 ἄρτος πάλιν ἄρτος 
ἐστὶ τέως coli: ἀλλ᾽, ὅταν αὐτὸν τὸ 
μυστήριον ἱερουργήσῃ, Ξῶμα Χριστοῦ 
λέγεταί τε καὶ γίνεται" - « ««««- ἡ αὐτὴ 





λογίας τῆς mpds\ τοὺς πολλοὺς καινό- 
τητος χωριζόμενον" χθὲς γὰρ καὶ πρῴην 
εἷς ὑπάρχων τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τοῦ δήμου, 
ἀθρόον ἀποδείκνυται καθηγεμὼν, πρόε- 
δρος, διδάσκαλος εὐσεβείας, μυστηρίων 
λανθανόντων porary ωγὸς᾽ καὶ ταῦτα 
ποιεῖ, μηδὲν τοῦ σώματος ἢ τῆς μορφῆς 
ἀμειφθεὶς, ὁ ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων κατὰ τὸ φαινό- 
μενον ἐκεῖνος ὃς ἦν, ἀοράτῳ τινὶ δυνά- 
μει καὶ χάριτι τὴν ἀόρατον ψυχὴν μετα- 
μορφωθεὶς πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον: . . . . κατὰ 
δὲ τὴν ὁμοίαν ἀκολουθίαν τῶν λογισμῶν 
καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, οὐδὲν ἄλλο τυγχανὸν ἢ ὕδωρ, 
ἀνακαινίζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς τὴν νοητὴν 
ἀναγέννησιν. 7 
| Lib. iv. de Sacr. cap. 4. [8 16.— 
S. Ambrosii op., ed. Ben, Par. 1690, 
tom. ii. col. 369. ] 


F2 


68 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


ae P. formavit, sed quod gratia reformavit: fit panis per con- 
—— secrationem, “™non quod natura formavit, sed quod bene- 
dictio consecravit.” Natura enim non nisi hominem nudum, 
panem nonnisi panem communem, formavit: regeneratio 
vero ex homine nudo facit hominem sanctum, in quo 
Christus spiritualiter habitat; benedictio itidem ex pane 
communi facit panem mysticum sive sacramentalem. In- 
terim mutatio hee naturam non destruit, sed gratiam 
nature adjicit. Quod clarius adhuc ab ipso sanctissimo 
patre exprimitur, loco superius adducto. ‘Tu forte dices,” 
(ait",) ‘‘panis meus usitatus est. Sed panis iste panis est? 
ante verba”’ (benedictionis) “ sacramentorum: ubi acces- 
'[“Caro.”]serit consecratio, de pane fit Corpus! Christi. Hoe igitur 
adstruamus: Quomodo, qui panis est, potest esse Corpus 
Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio autem fit........ 
verbis Domini, .. ut venerabile sacramentum conficiatur..... 
Vides, quam ‘operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si ergo tanta 
vis est in sermone Domini, ut inciperent esse” (panis et 
vinum) “ que non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut 
sint que erant, et in aliud commutentur!..... Ergo, 
(ut tibi respondeam,) non erat Corpus Christi ante conse- 
crationem, sed post consecrationem ... . jam est Corpus 
Christi. Ipse dixit, et factum est .... Tu ipse eras, sed 
eras vetus creatura: postquam consecratus es, nova crea- 
tura esse ccepisti.” His verbis docet Ambrosius, quomodo 
panem esse Corpus Christi intelligendum sit ; nempe, ut hae 
mutationis ratione panis et vinum non desinant esse, per 
substantiam, quod sunt: (tunc enim non essent quod erant :) 
et tamen in Eucharistid per benedictionem fiant, que ante 
non fuerunt. Sic enim sunt et manere dicuntur que erant 
per naturam, ut tamen in aliud commutentur per gratiam, 
hoc est, ut sint certa et imdubitata symbola Corporis et 
Sanguinis Christi, adeoque etiam vera justitie et redemp- 


m Idem, de Myst. init. c. ix. [ὃ 50; ture, quia benedictione etiam natura 


ubisupr. col. 338.—Forte dicas : Aliud 
video. Quomodo tu mihi adseris quod 
Christi Corpus accipiam? Et hoc no- 
bis adhue superest ut probemus. Quan- 
tis igitur utimur exemplis? Probemus 
non hoc esse quod natura formavit, sed 
quod benedictio consecravit ; majorem- 
que vim esse benedictionis quam na- 


ipsa mutatur. | 

© De Sacram., lib. iv. c. 4. [8 14— 
16; ubi supra, col. 368, 369. ] 

° [Hee sententia in MS. Dunelm. 
verbis aliquanto mutatis sic legitur :— 
‘¢ Sed panis iste panis est” (hoc est, nu- 
dus panis) ‘‘ ante verba sacramento- 
rum ;” &c. 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI®. 69 


tionis nostre pignora. Ecquid magis diserte et perspicue 
contra transubstantiationis somnium dici potest ? 

XVIII. Sanctus etiam Chrysostomus, magnus Ecclesiz 
doctor, carnalem hance transubstantiationem, et manduca- 
tionem Corporis Christi absque manducatione panis, aper- 
tissime repudiat, atque refellit. ‘ Mysteria” (inquit?) “non 
sunt carnaliter, sed interioribus oculis, hoc est, spiritualiter, 
consideranda et contemplanda: hujusmodi enim est myste- 
riorum natura.” Ubi observanda est antithesis inter car- 
naliter et spiritualiter, que nullum cavillandi locum relin- 
quit. Rursus?: “Sicut in Baptismo, sensibili aque ele- 
mento, intelligibile donum regenerationis confertur, ita 
etiam intelligibile hoc Corporis et Sanguinis Christi donum, 
non corporea aut sensibili aliqua actione, sed spirituali fidei 
intelligenti4, animo atque mente percipitur:” Quod nihil 
est aliud, quam res spirituales predicari de rebus sensi- 
bilibus, quibus et significantur et obsignantur. Magis 
autem aperte loquitur in Epistola ad Cesarium; ubi non 
substantialem, sed sacramentalem, panis mutationem in hoc 
mysterio esse docet; secundum quam externa elementa 
ipsarum rerum significatarum nomine vocentur, et ita mu- 
tentur, ut pristine tamen substantize suze naturam retineant. 
“Caro Christi,” (inquit') “cujus appellatione panis, per sanc- 
tificationem sacerdotis, dignus factus est: sed incorrupte 
nature suze proprietatem retinet et conservat, sicut ipsa 
natura et substantia panis remanet.” ... “ Antequam sanc- 
tificetur panis, panem nominamus ; Divina autem illum con- 


P Homil. xlv. in S. Joh., al. xlvi. 
~[ Vid. Hom. xlvii., al. xlvi., § 2. in S. 
Joh. vi. 63.—S. Chrysost. op., ed. 
Ben. Par. 1728, tom. viii. p. 278.—rt 
δέ ἐστι τὸ σαρκικῶς νοῆσαι; τὸ ἁπλῶς 
εἰς τὰ προκείμενα ὁρᾷν, καὶ μὴ πλέον τι 
φαντάζεσθαι. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι TapKiKas. 
χρὴ δὲ μὴ οὕτω κρίνειν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις, 
ἀλλὰ πάντα τὰ μυστήρια τοῖς ἔνδον ὁφ- 
“θαλμοῖς κατοπτεύειν. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι 
πνευματικῶς. 

4 Ibidem. [ Nullibi homiliarum in 
S. Joh. inventa sunt hee verba. Vid. 
autem Hom. Ixxxii., al. ]xxxiii. in S. 
Matt. xxvi. 35. § 4; ubisupr. tom. vii. 
p- 787.—érel οὖν ὁ λόγος φησὶ τοῦτό 
ἐστι τὸ Σῶμά Mov’ καὶ πειθώμεθα, καὶ 
πιστεύομεν, καὶ νοητοῖς αὐτὸ βλέπωμεν 
ὀφθαλμοῖς. οὐδὲν γὰρ αἰσθητὸν παρέ- 


δωκεν ἡμῖν 6 Χριστὺς, ἀλλ᾽ αἰσθητοῖς 
μὲν πράγμασι πάντα δὲ νοητά. οὕτω 
γὰρ καὶ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι δι’ αἰσθητοῦ 
μὲν πράγματος γίνεται τοῦ ὕδατος τὸ 
δῶρον, νοητὸν δὲ τὸ ἀποτελούμενον, ἣ 
γέννησις καὶ ἣ ἀναγέννησις *, ἤτουν ἀνα- 
καίνισις.---- ἘΠ xc ἀναγέννησις, ἤτουν de- 
est in Savil. } 

τ Idem, in Epist.ad Czsarium con- 
tra Heres. Apollinaris. [Op., tom. iii. 
col. 744.—Sicut enim, antequam sane- 
tificatur panis, panem nominamus: di- 
vind autem illum sanctificante gratia, 
mediante sacerdote, liberatus est qui- 
dem ab appellatione panis; dignus au- 
tem habitus Dominici Corporis appel- 
latione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso 
permansit: et non duo corpora, sed 
unum Corpus Filii predicamus. | 





S. Chry- 
sostomus, 


A.D. 390. 





S. Augus- 
tinus, 


A.D. 400. 


70 ΡῈ SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


secrante gratid, ... . . . Dominicum Corpus appellari 
meruit, etsi natura panis permaneat.” Hoc perspicuum 
magni patris testimonium quum Cardinalis Bellarminus re- 
fellere non posset, satis esse putavit, si epistolam illam 
Chrysostomi esse negaret’. Sed nugatur tam ille, quam 
Possevinus‘, cum dicunt eam inter Opera Chrysostomi non 
extare. Preterquam enim quod tum Florentiz" tum alibi 
exstabat’, citatur in Collectaneis contra Severianos™, quae ex 
Fr. Turriani Jesuite versione habentur in iv. tomo Antiq. 
Lectionum Henrici Canisii, et in fine libri Jo. Damasceni 
contra Acephalos*. Subjicio luculentum testimonium ex 
opere imperfecto in 5. Mattheum,—libro quem vel Chrysos- 
tomus, vel alius antiquus auctor, vere quidem hic in parte 
Catholicus, ab Arianis minime depravatus, conscripsit. “Τὴ 
his” (inquitY) “ vasis sanctificatis,” ... “non est VERUM COR- 
Pus CHRISTI, sed MystERIUM Corporis Ejus continetur.” 
XIX. Quod etiam, plus millies, ab Augustino dictum. 
Sed ex tot aliis, que ad hance rem faciunt, locis pene imnu- 
meris, tria tantum recitabo; que summatim omnia reliqua 
comprehendunt.—[1.] “*Non hoe Corpus, quod videtis, 


5. Lib. ii. de Euch. cap. 22. [ὃ Oc- 
tavum.—Bellarm. op., ed. Ingolst. 
1601, tom. 111, col. 617, 618.—Octavum 
testimonium sumit ex libro sive epis- 
tola ad Cesarium Monachum; ubi 
legimus panem post consecrationem 
non vocari amplius panem, licet natura 
panis in ipso permaneat. Respondeo: 
Nihil ejusmodi usquam  scripsisse 
Chrysostomum ; neque enim in toto 
Chrysostomi opere ullus est liber vel 
epistola ad Czsarium. . Nolo enim 
cum Chrysostomo miscere testimonia 
incerta, et nullius auctoritatis. | 

τ In Apparatu.—Chrysost. [Vid. 
Antonii Possevini Apparat. Saer., ver- 
bo Chrysost.; ed. Venet. 1606, tom. 
11. p. 154.—Qui ab hereticis quibus- 
dam tributus est liber sive epistola ad 
Cesarium monachum, nullus est. Nec 
vero inter omnia Chrysost. scripta ullus 
est liber sive epist. ad Cesarium. | 

u Steph. Gard. ep. Wint. contra Pet. 
Mart., lib. ii. de Euch. [ Vid. Confuta- 
tiones Cavillationumin saer. Euch.,obj. 
201; ed. Lovan. 1554, pp. 479, 480. 
—Objicitur preterea ex Chrysost. ad 
Czsarium, &c. (Conf. Petr. Mart. 
Loc. Com. class. iy. cap. x. § 31, ed. 
Tigur. 1587, p. 854.) .... Respons. 
Cathol. Non est hoe Joannis Chry- 


sostomi, sed Joannis cujusdam Con- 
stantinopolitanii—Vid. autem Petri 
Martyris Defens. Doctrine Veteris de 
Eucharistia, par. i. object. 201, ed. s. 
1. 1562, p. 368; ubi Steph. Gardinero 
Petrus Martyr respondet.—Conf. etiam 
object. 130. p. 285.1] 

Y [Vid. Fabricii Bibl. Gree., ed. 
Hamb. 1790, tom. i. p. 699.—Et conf. 
Prefat. Emerici Bigotii sub Epistole 
ad Cesarium init., ap. S. Chrysostomi 
op., ed. Ben. Par. 1728, tom. iii. p. 741. 
—‘‘ jus exemplar reperi apud RR. 
PP. Dominicanos in monasterio S. 
Marci.” | 

w (Vid. Henrici Canisii Thesaur. 
Monument. Eccles., ed. Anty. 1725, 
tom, ii. p. 255.—Item, conf. Animad- 
vers. Historic. Jacobi Basnage in Epist. 
ad Ces., ubi supr. tom. i. p. 226.] 

x (Vid. S. Joh. Damascen. lib. contr. 
Jacobitas.—Op., ed. Par. 1712, tom. i. 
p. 427.] 

y §. Chrysost., in op. imperf. in 
S. Matth., hom. xi. [ap. S. Chrysostomi 
op., sub fin. tom. vi. p. lxiii.; ubi autem 
legitur in marg.—‘* Hee”’ (scil. verba 
a Cosino citata) “ἴῃ quibusdam exem- 
plaribus desunt.”’ 

z In Psal. 98. [8 9.—Op., ed. Par. 
1680, tom. iv. col. 1066.] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 71 


mandueaturi estis, nec bibituri illum Sanguinem quem fu- 
suri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis 
commendavi: spiritualiter intellectum, vivificabit vos.” Hezec 
S. Augustinus, verba Christi enarrans.—2. “*Si sacramenta 
quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta 
sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex 
hic similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina 
accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacra- 
mentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est, ita et sacra- 
mentum Fidei Fides est.”—38. Eodem pertinet, quod contra 
Maximinum Arianum scribit®: In sacramentis, “non quid 
sint, sed quid ostendant, . . . attenditur; quoniam signa 
sunt rerum, aliud existentia, et aliud significantia.”—EKt 
alibit, de pane et vino loquens: “ Ne quis attendat” (in- 
quit) “in eis, quod sunt, sed potius quod signa sunt.”— 
Nam‘ “et Dominus non dubitavit dicere, Hoc est Corpus 
Meum, quum signum Corporis daret.” Manifestior sane 
est hec S. Augustini sententia, quam ut vel negari vel eludi 
possit. Si enim sacramenta aliud existant, et aliud signifi- 
cent, in id quidem, quod significant, non sic permutantur, 
ut permutata non amplius existant. Permutatur aqua in 
Baptismo, sicut et panis ac vinum in Eucharistid. Sed 
quicquid permutatur non statim transubstantiatur, aut pris- 
tinam suam existentiam perdit. Ut enim integra substantia 
aquz manet in Baptismo, sic integra substantia panis et vini 
manet in Eucharistia. 

XX. Sanctus Prosper, haud longo intervallo Augustinum 5, Pros- 
secutus, et scriptor per omnia Catholicus, docuit® Eucha- ace 
ristiam “duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, et 
invisibili Christi Domini nostri carne et sanguine,” (hoc est,) 
“sacramento, et re sacramenti; .. . sicut persona Christi con- 


σε: 


a Epist. xxiii. ad Boniface. [4]. Epist. 





xevili.—Op., tom. ii. col. 267. | 

> Contra Max., lib. iii. cap. 22. [ Vid. 
lib. 11. cap. 22. ὃ 3.—Op., tom. viii. 
col, 725. ] 

© De Doctr. Christ. cap. 7. [ Vid. lib. 
ii. cap. i. ὃ 1.—Op., tom. iii. par. i. col. 
19.] 

4 [Hee verba non inventa sunt.— 
Vid. autem ὃ 4. ubi supr. col. 20.— 
Odore unguenti Dominus, quo perfusi 
sunt pedes Ejus, signum aliquod dedit ; 
et, sacramento Corporis ct Sanguinis Sui 


pregustato, significavit quod voluit. } 
© Sent. Prosp. [q. v. ap. Prop. op., 
ed. Lugd. 1539, p. 214; item, ap. S. 
Aug. op., ed. Ben. Par. 1689, tom. x. 
append. col. 247.] dist. ii. de Cons. 
cap. [48.] Hoc est. [Vid. Gratiani De- 
cret. par. iii., ed. Par. 1612, col. 2108; 
ubi Augustino ap. Prosp. Sent. ad- 
scriptum est. Ibi autem haud extat. 
Lanfranci nostri verba sunt adv. Be- 
rengarium, lib. de Corp. et Sang. Dom., 
cap. x.—Op., ed. Lut. Par. 1648, p. 


239. | 


72. DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANQUCATIONE + 


> 

stat ....ex Deo et homine.” Quis vero, preter Eutychium 
infamem hereticum, Christum Deum in hominem, aut ho- 
minem Christum in Deum, transubstantiatum esse dixerit ? 

XXI. Nihil hic clarius B. Theodoreti testimonio, ex quo 
intelligimus queenam veteris Ecclesiz hic de re fuerit sen- 
tentia. “Servator quidem noster” (inquit‘) “in institutione 
Eucharistiz nomina rerum commutavit, et Corpori id quod 
erat symboli nomen imposuit, symbolo vero id quod erat 
Corporis.” Hoc autem Eum propterea fecisse dicit®, “ut, 
qui divinorum mysteriorum participes fiant, non attendant 
naturam eorum que videntur, sed per nominum permuta- 
tionem ei credant mutationi, que ex gratia facta est. Qui 
enim, quod natura Corpus est, triticum et panem appellavit, 
Is symbola et signa, que vocantur, appellatione Corporis et 
Sanguinis Sui honoravit; non naturam quidem mutans, sed 
nature gratiam adjiciens.” Talem igitur docet symbolorum 
in Eucharistia fieri mutationem, ut interim eorum vel natura 
vel substantia permaneat: quod postea clarius adhue explicat. 
Cum enim Eranista, Eutychii partes propugnans, dixisset? : 
“Quemadmodum symbola Dominici Corporis et Sanguinis 
alia quidem sunt ante invocationem sacerdotis, sed post eam 
mutantur et alia fiunt, ita etiam Corpus Domini post as- 
sumptionem mutatur in divinam substantiam et naturam ;” 
(ex hypothesi vero transubstantiationis argumentum hoc 
Kutychianum est plane indissolubile ;) respondet ei ortho- 


f Dialog. i. [Immutabil.—B. Theo- 
doreti op., ed. Par. 1642, tom. iv. p. 
17.—Op8. Ὁ δέ ye Σωτὴρ 6 ἡμέτερος 
ἐνήλλαξε τὰ ὀνόματα, καὶ τῷ μὲν Σώματι 
τὸ τοῦ συμβόλου τέθεικεν ὄνομα, τῷ δὲ 
συμβόλῳ τὸ τοῦ Σώματος" κ.τ.λ.} 

g Tbidem, [ubi supr. p. 18. —nBov- 
λήθη γὰρ τοὺς τῶν θείων μυστηρίων με- 
ταλαγχάνοντας, μὴ τῇ φύσει τῶν βλε- 
πομένων προσέχειν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς τῶν 
ὀνομάτων ἐναλλαγῆς πιστεύειν τῇ ἐκ 
τῆς χάριτος γεγενημένῃ μεταβολῇ. ὃ 
γὰρ δὴ τὸ φύσει Σῶμα σῖτον καὶ ἄρτον 
προσαγορεύσας, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἑαυτὸν 
ἄμπελον ὀνομάσας, οὗτος τὰ δρώμενα 
σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ Σώματος καὶ Αἵματος 
προσηγορίᾳ τετίμηκεν, οὐ τὴν φύσιν 
μεταβαλὼν, ἀλλὰ τὴν χάριν τῇ φύσει 
eps. 1 

h Dial. i. [Inconfus. -» ubi supr. p. 
85.— ΤΩΣ ‘Dame τοίνυν τὰ σύμβολα 
τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ Σώματός τε καὶ Αἵμα- 


τος, ἄλλα μέν εἰσι πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς 
ἐπικλήσεως, μετὰ δέ γε τὴν ἐπίκλησιν 
μεταβάλλεται καὶ ἕτερα γίνεται. οὕτω 
τὸ Δεσποτικὸν Ξῶμα μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν 
εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν μετεβλήθη τὴν θείαν. 
Ορθ. “Ἑάλως αἷς ὕφῃνες ἄρκυσιν. 
οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ἃ ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικὰ 
σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως. 
μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας, καὶ 
τοῦ σχήματος, καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά 
ἐστι καὶ ἁπτὰ, ofa καὶ πρότερον ἦν᾽ νο- 
εἴται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο, καὶ πιστεύεται, 
καὶ προσκυνεῖται, ὧς ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπερ 
πιστεύεται. παράθες τοίνυν τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ 
τὴν εἰκόνα, καὶ ὄψει τὴν ὁμοιότητα. χρὴ 
γὰρ ἐοικέναι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τὸν τύπον. καὶ 
γὰρ ἐκεῖνο τὸ SGua τὸ μὲν πρότερον ei- 
δος ἔχει, καὶ σχῆμα, καὶ περιγραφὴν, 
καὶ, ἁπαξαπλῶς εἰπεῖν, τὴν τοῦ Ξώματος 
οὐσίαν. ἀθάνατον δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν 
γέγονε" K.T.A. | 











CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTLE. 73 


doxa antiquitas: “ Implicatus es eisdem retibus que texu- 
isti; neque enim symbola, sive signa mystica, post sanctifi- 
cationem recedunt a natura sud, sed manent in priori sua 
substantia, forma, et specie, et videri et tangi possunt, sicut 
et prius: intelliguntur autem ea etiam que facta sunt.” ..... 
“Confer ergo imaginem cum exemplari, et videbis similitu- 
dinem. Oportet enim figuram esse veritati similem. Corpus 
πιὰ habet priorem quidem formam et circumscriptionem, 
et (ut semel dicam) Corporis substantiam. 
tem post resurrectionem factum est; &c. Hee omnia, et 
multo plura in eandem sententiam, Theodoretus, qui Ephe- 
sino et Chalcedonensi Conciliis Gicumenicis interfuit. In- 
epte nimis hic excipere solent nonnulli Romanenses, quasi 
per naturam et substantiam symbolorum, que dicuntur re- 
manere et non mutari, Theodoretus intellexisset naturam 
et (ut Cardinali Bellarmino absurde prorsus loqui placuit') 
substantiam accidentium. Atqui totus contextus hoc glos- 
sema fortissime refellit: conjungit enim Theodoretus na- 
turam, substantiam, formam, et figuram. Et qua tandem 
ratione potuisset everti argumentum Eutychianum, si tan- 
tum accidentia panis, sublaté substantia, post consecrationem 
manere concessisset? An vero de accidentibus panis et vini 
dixit Christus, ‘ Heec accidentia sunt,’ at [aut?] ‘Hoc accidens 
est Corpus Meum?’ Sed transubstantiatoribus licet (nobis 
non equidem) creaturam in Creatorem, substantias in acci- 
dentia, accidentia in substantias, quodlibet in quidlibet, per- 
mutare. Parum porro modestiz et caritatis Christiane 
illis inesse videtur, qui tanti nominis et meriti patris, quanti 


Immortale au- 


erat B. Theodoretus, auctoritatem enervare conantur®, ex eo 


i Lib. ii. de Euch. cap. 27. [ Test. The- 
odoreti et Gelasii, ὃ Sed nec Lutheri. 
—Op., tom. iii. col. 641.—Sed nee Lu- 
theri causam adjuvat, si diligenter con- 
sideretur Theodoretus. Nam, cum di- 
cit substantiam symbolorum remanere 
et non mutari, non loquitur de substan- 
tia que distinguitur contra accidentia, 
et quam in prima categoria posuit 
Aristoteles, sed de essentid et naturd 
accidentium, que ipse perpetuo symbola 
appellat, quomodo alii auctores Greci 
et Latini passim accipiunt vocabulum 
substantiz : sed maxime Grece voces, 
φύσις et οὐσία, quibus Theodoretus 
usus est, omnem essentiam et naturam 
amplectuntur. Nec solum Greeci, sed 


Latini etiam, interdum persubstantiam 
intelligunt naturam accidentium. Pe- 


trus Cluniacensis, in lib. de Sacrificio et ~ 


Transubstantiatione, ‘ Annon cernis,’ 
inquit, ‘preter glacialem duritiam, 
preter lapideam firmitatem, (quantum 
ad speciem vel perspicuitatem jam dicti 
elementi pertinet,) nihil utique sub- 
stantie detractum?’ ubi per substan- 
tiam intelligit naturam externe figure 
et perspicuitatis, que manent quando 
mutatur glacies in chrystallum. Hoe 
igitur Theodoretus docet, naturam sym- 
bolorum, id est, accidentium sensi- 
bilium que sunt in Eucharistia, fuisse 
etiam ante consecrationem. } 

k Greg. de Valentia, lib. ii. de Tran- 


CYASE: 


S. Gela- 
sius, A.D. 
470, aut 
490, plus 
minus. 


74 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


quod de quibusdam erroribus in concilio Ephesino notatus 
fuit ; tametsi postea resipuerit, ut et ipsimet fateri coguntur: 
scilicet, ut hae rimaé elabantur, dum negare non possunt 
Theodoretum asseruisse elementa in priore substantia ma- 
nere ; quod tamen scripsit in dialogis illis, quos contra Euty- 
chianos hereticos, magni cum laude et Ecclesiz Catholicze 
approbatione, composuit. Atque equidem heec aperta veri- 
tas quosdam etiam ex ipsis adversaris perpulit, ut Theodo- 
reti testimonium nobis largirentur. Nam in epistolé Theodo- 
reti dialogis preefixd, editionis Romane per Stephanum Nico- 
linum, chalcographum apostolicum, anno 1547 adornate, 
planissime scribitur!, ‘Theodoretum in his locis de Transub- 
stantiatione minus commode sentire; excusandum tamen, 
quoniam de ei Ecclesia (Romana) nondum legem tulisset.’ 
XXII. Theodoreto conjungimus Gelasium ; quem (sive is 
erat episcopus Romanus, sive alius quispiam,) Cardinalis 
Bellarminus fatetur ejusdem cum illo et evi et sententiz 
fuisse :—testem sane antiquum satis et incorruptum. Sceripsit 
ille contra Hutychen, et Nestorium, de duabus in Christo 
naturis, ad hunc modum™: “ Certe sacramenta quee sumi- 
mus, Corporis et Sanguinis Christi, divine res sunt per 
quas divine efficimur consortes nature ; et tamen esse non 
desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini: et quidem imago 
ac similitudo Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in actione myste- 
riorum celebratur. Satis ergo per hoc nobis evidenter osten- 





subst. c. 7. [ Vid. Gregorii de Valent. 
Libros de rebus Fidei hoe tempore 
controversis, ed. Lugd. 1591. p. 890.— 
Accedit, quod Theodoretus ille de aliis 
quibusdam erroribus in Concilio Ephe- 
sino notatus fuit; tametsi postea resi- 
puerit. Neque enim Gelasius ille fuit 
auctor satis clarus; Wc. |— Aliique. 

1 Prefat. in Dialog. Theodoreti. 
[ Vid. ὃ Ac primum, ed. 4to. Rome, 
per Stephanum Nicolinum, 1547.— 
Quamquam Theodoretus hoc fortasse 
nomine aliqua venia dignus videatur, 
quod de ea re ejus tempore ab Ecclesia 
nondum fuisset aliquid promulgatum. 
Kt minus mirandum est, &c. | 

m De duabus in Christo naturis, in 
Bibl. Patrum, tom. iv. [ Vid. Gelas. adv. 
Futychen et Nestorium, ap. Biblioth. 
Patr. Max., ed. Lugd. 1677, tom. viii. p. 
703 ; ubi ipsissima verba sunt hee que 
sequuntur: ‘‘ Certe sacramenta que su- 


mimus Corporis et Sanguinis Christi di- 
vina res est, propter quod et per eadem 
divine efficimur consortes nature: et 
tamen esse non desinit substantia vel 
natura panis et vini. Et certe imago 
et similitudo Corporis et Sanguinis 
Christi in actione mysteriorum cele- 
brantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter 
ostenditur, hoc nobis in Ipso Christo 
Domino sentiendum, quod in Ejus 
imagine profitemur, celebramus, et su- 
mimus; ut, sicut in hane (scilicet, in 
divinam) transeant Sancto Spiritu per- 
ficiente substantiam, "permanente tamen 
in suz proprietate nature, sic illud 
ipsum mysterium principale, cujus no- 
bis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter 
representant, ex quibus constat pro- 
prie permanentibus, unum Christum, 
quia integrum verumque, permanere 
demonstrant.”’ | 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 79 


ditur, hoc nobis in Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in 
imagine profitemur;... ut, sicut hec in Divinam transeunt, 
Spirita S. perficiente, substantiam, et permanent tamen in 
suze nature proprietate, sic illud principale” (Incarnationis) 
“mysterium, cujus” hec “nobis efficientiam et virtutem 
veraciter representant, iis naturis ex quibus constat pro- 
prie permanentibus, unum Christum integrum verumque 
permanere demonstrat.” E quibus verbis liquido constat 
substantialem non esse, quie in sacramento sit, transmutati- 
onem. Primo, enim, ita transeunt sanctificata elementa in 
substantiam Corporis et Sanguinis Christi, ut tamen non 
desinat esse substantia vel natura panis et vini. Secundo, 
ita permanent panis et vinum in sue nature proprictate, 
sicut permanent duc nature in Christo, ex quibus constat. 
Postremo, ideo transire dicuntur in divinam substantiam, 
quod, dum ea percipimus, communicato nobis et Corpore et 
Sanguine Christi, divinze naturee consortes efficiamur. Que 
cum ita sint, deploranda quidem est illorum cecitas, qui 
non vident eundem ab eis in Ecclesiam Romanam revocatum 
esse transubstantiationis errorem, quem in Eutychianis dam- 
navit pia et erudita vetustas. Quod autem suam hic cram- 
ben reponunt’, et “ per substantiam panis, non ipsam veram 
substantiam, sed naturam et essentiam accidentium tantum,” 
intelligi volunt, mirum effugium est et miserum. Laudanda 
magis Cardinalis Contareni ingenuitas, qui, veritate victus, 
ad tam perspicuum Gelasii patris testimonium obmutuit?. 





Ὁ Bellarm. 1. cit. [vid.“supr. p. 73. 
not. ad lit.i. ]*Baron. ad ann. 496; [An- 
_nal., ed. Mogunt. 1601, tom. vi. col. 
664.] note marginal. ad verba Gelasii 
in Bibl. Patrum. [Vid. Bibl. Patr. 
Maxim., ut supra, tom. viii. p. 703, 
not. marg. ad verba: ... “non disinit 
substantia * vel natura,’ &c.—*Rite, 
lector, intellige verba Gelasii: substan- 
tiam panis et vini appellat non ipsam 
veram substantiam: vocat naturam et 
essentiam accidentium, que manent 
in Eucharistia, et theologi species vo- 
cant; quz quia vicem et proprietatem 
substantia induunt in nutriendo, &c., 
quodammodo hae etiam ratione sub- 
stantia dici queunt. Hune autem mo- 
rem loquendi non esse alienum a pa- 
tribus, nec a Gelasio presertim, abunde 
te docebunt Bellarminus lib. ii. de 
Eucharistia, ο, 27, Baronius tom. vi. 


Annal., ann. Christi 496. ο. 8, et seq. ] 

9 In Colloq. Ratisb. A.D. 1541. 
{ Vid. Chemnitii Examen Decretorum 
Concilii Tridentini, cap. de Transub- 
stantiatione, ed. Francof. 1596. par. ii. 
p- 80.—Hec est interpretatio Gelasii, 
quomodo vetus Keclesia intellexit pa- 
nem et vinum in Eucharistia mutari 
seu converti in Corpus et Sanguinem 
Christi. Et Contarenus in Colloquio 
Ratisponensi 1541 obstupuit, cum vi- 
deret tam aperto et perspicuo testimo- 
nio, quod luce meridiana clarius est, 
pontificiam transubstantiationem ex 
Romani pontificis sententia refutari.— 
Acta autem Conventus Ratisbonensis, 
edit. Vitebergz 1541, de Card. Conta- 
reni ingenuitate tacent. Conf. etiam 
Epist. ad Angelum Mariam Quirinum, 
&e., de Contareno, purioris doctrine 
de justificatione in Conventu Ratisbo- 


CAP. 
Vv 





S. Cyrillus 
Alexan- 

drinus, et 
Concilium 
Chalcedo- 
nense, cir- 
ca An.450. 


Ephremus 
Patriarcha 
Antioche- 
nus, A.D. 
540. 


76 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


XXIII. Adjicio etiam Cyrillum Alexandrinum ; qui “ Cor- 
pus et Sanguinem Christi in sacramento sola et puraP fide 
accipi’” dixit, in ila contra Nestorianos epistoli4, quam sex- 
centi patres in concilio Chalcedonensi, suo consensu et ap- 
probatione, confirmirunt’. 

Reliquos vero hujus evi patres preetermitto ; quorum tamen 
scripta quamplurima non minus cum transubstantiatione, et 
accidentibus sine subjecto in aere pendentibus, pugnant, 
quam quz hactenus e’superioribus recitavi. 

XXIV. Accedo ad seculum sextum. Scripsit ante illius 
medium Ephremus patriarcha Antiochenus librum, a Photio 
lectum et laudatum‘, de legibus et ceremoniis sacris, adversus 
Eutychianos ; in quo, quum probare velit, per hypostaticam 
unionem, nullam in Christo naturarum confusionem fuisse 
factam, sed utramque suam substantiam et proprietatem 
retinuisse, similitudine utitur unionis sacramentalis, et negat 
in sacramento mutationem unius substantiz in aliam fieri. 
“ Nemo,” (inquit*,) “qui mentem habet, poterit dicere ean- 
dem esse naturam tractabilis, et intractabilis, sub aspectu 
cadentis, et invisibilis. Nam sic etiam Corpus Christi, quod 
a fidelibus accipitur, et a sensibili sud substantia non recedit, 


nensi teste et confessore. a Joan. Ru- 
dolph. Kieslingio, ed. 4to. Lipsiz, 
1749. | 

® [In MS. Dunelm. verba sunt:... 
‘‘ sola, pura, et inexquisita fide,” &c. } 

a Inter Epistolas Cyrilli in Cone. 
Eph. [ Incassum petita sunt hee verba, 
que Cosinus citat. Vid. autem ex- 
emplum Epistole S. Cyrilli Alex. ad 
Nestorium, de Excommunicatione, § 7; 
ap.Conc. Ephes. par.i. cap, 26.— Labbe, 
tom. 111. col. 403.—KatayyéAortes yap, 
K.T.Ae . 2. es THY ἀναίμακτον ἐν ταῖς 
ἐκκλησίαις τελοῦμεν θυσίαν: πρόσιμέν 
τε οὕτω ταῖς μυστικαῖς εὐλογίαις, καὶ 
ἁγιαζόμεθα, μέτοχοι γενόμενοι τῆς τε 
ἁγίας Σαρκὺς καὶ τοῦ τιμίου Αἵματος τοῦ 
παντων ἡμῶν Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ" καὶ οὐχ 
ὡς σάρκα κοινὴν δεχόμενοι: μὴ γένοιτο" 
Ξ . . ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ζωοποιὸν ἀληθῶς, καὶ 
ἰδίαν αὑτοῦ τοῦ λόγου. ζωὴ γὰρ ὧν κατὰ 
φύσιν ὡς Θεὸς, ἐπειδὴ γέγονεν ἕν πρὸς 
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα, ζωοποιὸν ἀπέφηνεν 
αὐτήν. ὥστε κἂν λέγῃ πρὸς ἡμᾶς" ἀμὴν, 
ἀμὴν, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν 
σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ πίητε 
αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα: οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώπου τῶν 
καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἑνὺς καὶ αὐτὴν εἶναι λογιού- 


μεθα’ πῶς γὰρ ἡ ἀνθρώπου σὰρξ ξωοποιὸς 
ἔσται κατὰ φύσιν τὴν ἑαυτῆς ; K.T.A.] 

r Act.v.in Concil. Chalced. [δ Item, 
symbolum centum quinquaginta S. Fa- 
trum, qui Constantinopoli congregati 
sunt.—Labbe, tom. iv. col. 566.—rdas 
τοῦ μακαρίου Κυρίλλου, τοῦ TiS ᾿Αλεξ- 
ανδρέων ἐκκλησίας γενομένου ποιμένος, 
συνοδικὰς ἐπιστολὰς πρός τε Νεστόριον 
καὶ πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς, ἁρμοδίους 
οὔσας ἐδέξατο (ἣ παροῦσα νῦν αὕτη ayia 
μεγάλη καὶ οἰκουμενιικκὴ σύνοδος.}} 

53 Photius, in Bibliothecee n, 229. 
[ Vid. 5. Ephrem Theopolitani Patri- 
arche lib. de sacris Antiochiz legibus ; 
ap. Photii Myriobiblon, num. cexxix., 
ed. Aurel. Allobr., p. 794. ] 

' Thidem, [ut supr.—aAr’ οὐδεὶς ἂν 
εἰπεῖν δύναται, νοῦν ἔχων, ὡς ἢ αὐτὴ 
φύσις ψηλαφητοῦ καὶ ἀψηλαφήτου, καὶ 
ὁρατοῦ καὶ ἀοράτου: οὕτω καὶ τὸ παρὰ 
τῶν πιστῶν λαμβανόμενον Σῶμα Χριστοῦ 
καὶ τῆς αἰσθητῆς οὐσίας οὐκ ἐξίσταται, 
καὶ τῆς νοητῆς ἀδιαίρετον μένει χάριτος" 
καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα δὲ πνευματικὸν ὅλον 
γενόμενον, καὶ ev ὑπάρχον, καὶ τὸ ἴδιον 
THs αἰσθητῆς οὐσίας (τοῦ ὕδατος, λέγω) 
διασώζει, καὶ 6 γέγονεν οὐκ ἀπώλεσεν. | 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI&£. 7 
et manet inseparatum a gratii intelligibili; οὐ Baptismus, 
etiamsi factus sit totus spiritualis, tamen proprietatem sensi- —“*___ 
bilis suze substantiz (hoc est, aque) conservat, et id quod 

factum est non amittit.” 

XXV. Edita sunt non ita pridem, Parisiis, opera Facundi Facundus 
episcopi Africani; cujus etas in hoc etiam seculum incidit. rears 
Que vero illius, atque veteris Ecclesiz, contra transubstan- 
tiatores sententia et doctrina fuerit, evidentissime verbis 
que subjicio apparet. ‘‘ Potest” (inquit") “ sacramentum 
adoptionis adoptio nuncupari; sicut sacramentum Corporis 
et Sanguinis Christi, quod est in pane et poculo consecrato, 
Corpus Ejus et Sanguinem dicimus ; non quod proprie* Cor- 
pus Ejus sit panis, et poculum Sanguis, sed quod in se mys- 
terium Corporis Ejus Sanguinisque contimeant. Hine et 
Ipse Dominus benedictum panem et calicem, quem discipu- 
lis tradidit, Corpus et Sanguinem Suum vocavit.” Scripsit 
Jesuita Sirmondus in Facundum notas; sed, quum ad hune 
locum pervenit, nihil aliud habuit quod diceret, nisi panem 
non esse panem, sed speciem tantum et apparentiam panis: 
quam sane Facundo adfingere sententiam, nec ingenui nec 
eruditi hominis erat; qualem tamen Sirmondus se haberi 
voluit. Neque enim vel unicum, ex omni vetustate, patrem 
monstrare potuit, qui ullam mentionem fecerit de accidentibus 
per se (que Sirmondo Jesuitz species panis sunt) sine omni 
subjecto subsistentibus. Quod autem “ durius hic aliquid 
vel obscurius elocutum esse” Facundum “forte cuiquam 
videri posse” existimabat, id quam immerito, et non sine 
magna tanti patris injurid, dixerit, facile quivis intelligat. 

XXVI. Sub initium seculi septimi floruit Isidorus epi- 
scopus Hispalensis, cujus hee erat de sacramento Eucharistiz 
loquendi formula’: ‘ Panis, quia confirmat corpus nostrum, 
ideo Corpus Christi nuncupatur; vinum autem, quia san- 


Isidorus 
Hisp.A.D. 
630. 


ἃ Lib. ix. cap. 5. [Facund. episc. Augustinus, Xc., ... non proprie, sed 





Herm. lib. pro Defensione trium capi- 
tulorum Cone. Chalced.; ap. Jac. Sir- 
mondi op., ed. Par. 1696, tom. ii. col. 
707. | 

x [** Panis consecratus, natura mu- 
tatus, panis non est: panis tamen ap- 
pellatur, quia panis fuit, et panis spe- 
ciem retinet: idemque judicium est 
vini. Panem rursus vinumque Cor- 
pus Christi et Sanguinem dicimus, ut 


figurative : quia sub panis et vini spe- 
cie Corpus Christi et Sanguis in sacra- 
mento continentur. Nee alia, opinor, 
in his verbis sententia est Facundi. . . 
. . . « Quod si durius hic fortasse 
vel obscurius quippiam elocutus videa- 
tur, dignus est venia;’’ &c.—Not. Sir- 
mondi. | 

y Lib. i. de Off. Eccl., cap. 18. 
[Isidori op., ed. Par. 1601, p. 586. ] 


Venerabilis 
Beda, © 
A.D: 720; 


78 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


guinem operatur in carne, ideo ad Sanguinem Christi refer- 
tur. Hee autem duo sunt visibilia; sanctificata tamen per 
Spiritum S., in sacramentum Divini Corporis transeunt.”.. . 
« Panis enim, quem frangimus, Corpus Christi est ; qui dicit, 
Ego sum panis vivus. Vinum autem Sanguis Ejus est; et 
hoc est quod scriptum est, Ego sum vitis vera.” Ecce trans- 
eunt, inquit, in sacramentum, non transeunt in substantiam, 
Divini Corporis. Panis enim et vinum, que nutriunt car- 
nem nostram, nec substantialiter esse nec dici possunt Cor- 
pus et Sanguis Christi; sacramentaliter vero non minus 
vere sunt, quam sic dicuntur’. Istu@ vero clarius adhue 
explicatur: (lib. vi. Etymolog. cap. 199 “ Sicut enim sub- 
stantia panis et vini visibilis nutrit .... hominem exterio- 
rem; ita verbum Christi, qui est panis vivus, per participa- 
tionem fidei, recreat animas fidelium.” Qu verba, e libris 
Isidori hodie impressis expuncta’, conservavit nobis Bertra- 
mus presbyter. 

XXVII. Atque hee eadem loquendi formula, quam ex 
Isidoro recitavimus, ab ipso Venerabili Bedé usurpatur, (qui 
nostras erat, et seeculum octavum attigit,) in sermone?, ab 


2 [In MS. Dunelm. verba que se- 
quuntur, usque ad sectionis finem, 
margine leguntur: sic autem coneludit 
Cosinus sententiam...‘f quam sic dicun- 
tur, quia signa sunt et symbola vere 
nobis utrumque tum adumbrantia, tum 
exhibentia.” | 

ἃ [Isid. Hisp. Etymolog. sive Origin. 
cap. xix.—Desunt hee verba editioni 
Madriti 1599, atque aliis recentioribus. 
—-Vid. autem Bertrami presb. lib. de 
Corpore et Sanguine Domini; ap. Hen- 
richi Petri Micropresbyticon, sive Vete- 
rum Theologorum Elenchum, ed. fol. 
Basil. 1550. p. 518.—Hine beatus Isi- 
dorus in libris Etymologiarum sie ait : 
‘Sacrificium dictum, &c.... Et quid me- 
lius Sanguine et Corpore Christi? Panis 
vero et vinum ideo Corpori et Sanguini 
Domini comparantur, quia, sicut visi- 
bilis hujus panis vinique substantia 
exteriorem nutrit et inebriat hominem, 
ita verbum Dei, qui est panis vivus, 
participatione Sui. fidelium recreat 
mentes.’ . . Ista dicendo, 
planissime confitetur quod, in sacra- 
mento Corporis et Sanguinis Domini, 
quicquid exterius sumitur ad corporis 
refectionem aptatur. Verbum autem 
Dei, qui est panis invisibilis, invisibi- 


liter in illo existens sacramento, invisi- 
biliter participatione fidelium mentes 
vivificando pascit. Hine etiam idem 
doctor dicit: ‘Sacramentum est in 
aliqua celebratione,’ &e.—Conf. Joh. 
Poineti Diallact. de veritate, natura, 
atque substantia, Corporis et Sangui- 
nis Christi in Eucharistia, ed. Lond. 
1688, pp. 69, 70. ] 

b Serm, de Epiph. [q. v. sub init.— 
Bedz op., ed. Colon. Agrip. 1612, tom. 
vii. co]. 320.—Non solum autem lavit 
nos a peccatis nostris in Saneuine Suo, 
quando Sanguinem Suum dedit in cru- 
ce pro nobis, vel quando unusquisque 
nostrum mysterio sacrosancte passio- 
nis Illius baptismo aque ablutus est, 
verum etiam quotidie tollit peccata 
mundi. Lavat itaque nos a peccatis 
nostris quotidie in Sanguine Suo, cum 
ejusdem beatz passionis ad altare me- 
moria replicatur, cum panis et vini 
creatura in sacramentum Carnis et San- 
guinis Ejus ineffabili Spiritus sanctifi- 
catione transfertur ; sicque Corpus, &c. 
Hujus recte figuram 
agnus in lege paschalis ostendit: qui, 
semel populum de Egyptia servitute 
liberans, in memoriam ejusdem libera- 
tionis per omnes annos immolatione 


. . . . . 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI&. 79 


illo habito, super Epiphaniam Domini; cujus et alia duo, 
quee huc faciunt, subjungimus testimonia. “ Loco carnis” 
(ait®) “et sanguimis agni, substituit Christus sacramentum 
Carnis Suz et Sanguinis in figuré panis et vini.” Item*: 
“ Dedit in coena discipulis figuram sacrosancti Corporis et 
Sanguinis Sui.” Que transubstantiationem penitus evertunt. 

XXVIII. Eodem szculo octavo scripsit Carolus Magnus Carolus 

epistolam ad Alcuinum nostrum, in qué hee verba legi- ἘΠΕ 
mus: Christus® “ccenando cum discipulis panem fregit, et 
calicem pariter dedit eis, in figuram Corporis et Sanguinis 
Sui; nobisque profuturum magnum exhibuit sacramentum.” 
Quod si figura sit Corporis, ipsum Corpus esse non potest. 
Datur quidem Corpus Christi in Eucharistid; sed mediante 
sacramento panis consecrati datur, cuicunque tandem datur 
fidelium. 

XXIX. Ineunte demum seculo nono, prodiit Paschasius, Pascha- 
monachus Corbeiensis ; qui primus (uti nonnulli perhibent, ἐπ Δ. 
quorum sententiz ipse tamen non accedo‘) Latinorum om- 
nium, consubstantiatum in ccena Christum, seu potius impana- 
tum et corporaliter pani unitum, docuit?: nondum enim ad 


CAE: 
Vi 


sua populum eundem sanctificare sole- Porro adjuncta adnotatur chartula 


bat, donee veniret Ipse, cui talis hostia 
testimonium dabat, oblatusque Patri 
pro nobis in hostiam, odoremque sua- 
vitatis, mysterium Suz passionis oblato 
agno in creaturam panis vinique trans- 
ferret. | 
© Comm. in Luc. xxii. [Op., tom. 
y. col. 424; ubi ipsissima verba sunt: 
*“ ut videlicet, pro carne 
agni vel sanguine Sue Carnis Sangui- 
nisque sacramentum in panis ae vini 
᾿ figura substituens, Ipsum Se esse mon- 
straret ; &c. ] 

4 Comm. in 3. Psal. [Op., tom. viii. 
col. 324. .... “nec a sacratissima 
coena, in qua figuram sacrosancti Cor- 
poris Sanguinisque Sui discipulis tra- 
didit. ] 

ὁ. Epist. ad Alcuinum, de ratione 
Septuag., [Sexages., et Quinquages. — 
Vid. Alcuini op., ed. Par. 1617, col. 
1150. | 

f [In MS. Dunelm. hee sectio xxix. 
sic incipit: ‘Ineunte demum seculo 
nono prodiit Paschasius Monachus Cor- 
biensis, qui primus Latinorum omnium 
consubstantiatum in eccend Christum, 
seu potius impanatum,”’ &e. : que ver- 
ba autem obliqua deleta sunt rubrica. 


hee Sirmondi que sequitur sententia, 
ex Paschasii vita, ubi infra, exscripta: 
*‘Ingenii vero et doctrines monimenta 
libris seriptis, ut dictum est, plurima 
reliquit; in quibus notissimus est liber 
de Corpore et Sanguine Domini, quem 
Ludovico Pio regnante, cum honore a 
nonnullis de sanctissimo sacramento 
jactata questio esset, composuit: in 
eoque genuinum Ecclesiz Catholic 
sensum ita primus explicuit, ut viam 
ceteris asseruerit, qui de eodem argu- 
mento multi postea scripsére.’’—Item, 
in Cestrensi manuscripto lectori obviam 
veniunt linez etiam rubricd subscript 
infra hee que sequuntur verba; scil. 
“ Paschasius’’ ...° primus Latinorum 
omnium, consubstantialum’”’....4. *im- 
panatum’”’... “Sante seculum undeci- 
mum’... . * Amalarius Archidiaco- 
nus’... .. ** Rabanus’’.. . * Joannes 
Erigena’...** Walafridus Strabo”... 
“ Ratramus sive Bertramus ;” &e. | 

8 Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Christi. 
(Vid. cap. iimPaschas. Radberti op., 
ed. Lut. Par. 1618, co}. 1555.—*“ Nul- 
lus moveatur,. . . quod in mysterio 
vera sit Caro, et verus sit Sanguis ; 
dum sic Ille voluit quicreavit. . . . 


80 


DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


transubstantiatum panem perventum erat. At novum istud 
loquendi genus, quum a doctrinaé Catholica et mente veterum 
patrum esset alienum, nullos fere fautores habuit ante szecu- 
lum undecimum. Nec defuerunt hic ipsi etiam etate, ad 
quam nunc pervenimus, viri doctissimi, (quales erant Ama- 
larius archidiaconus Trevirensis; Rabanus primum abbas 
Fuldensis, deinde archiepiscopus Moguntinus; Johannes 
Erigena theologus Britannus; Walafridus Strabo abbas 
Germanus; Ratramus sive Bertramus, presbyter primum 
Corbeiensis, post abbas factus Orbasiensis monasterii apud. 
Gallos; aliique quamplurimi;) qui, scriptis suis, huic sive 
Paschasii, sive aliorum potius, nove opinioni contradixerunt, 
et veteris Ecclesiz doctrinam nobis conservarunt. Sed*, 
interim, de Paschasio aliquid amplius adjiciendum est ; quem 
tanti fecerunt Cardinalis Bellarminus’', et Jesuita Sirmondus*, 
ut dicere non vererentur, eum primum omnium fuisse, qui 
serio seripsit de hoc Eucharistiz argumento, et ita sensum 
Ecclesize explicuisse, ut alus omnibus post eum secutis viam 
aperuerit, qui hance materiam tractirunt. In hoe tamen toto 
opere nihil invenire est, quod vel annihilato, vel subtracto, 
vel transubstantiato pani faveat. Veritatem quidem Corporis 
et Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistid asserit; quod Protes- 
tantes non negant: negat vero panem consecratum nudam 
esse figuram, aut vacuam sine veritate reprasentationem ; 
quod Protestantes non asserunt. Quin et multa habet, 
que cum transubstantiatione pugnant; ad quam tune tem- 
poris ab ipsi Romané Ecclesia nondum (uti dicebamus) per- 


Et, quia voluit (licet in figura panis et 
viii) hee sie esse, omnino nihil aliud 
quam Caro Christi et Sanguis post 
consecrationem credenda sunt.’’—Rur- 
sus: (cap. xvii. col. 1600, 1601.)— 
*“Non enim recte Caro Christi sine 
Divinitate sumitur, nec Divinitas 
sine Carne prestatur. . sya in 
Carne Christi Divinitas corporaliter in- 
habitans, etiam in hoc mysterium ab 
aspectu oculorum, ne Caro videatur, 
subtrahitur: ut fide avidius queratur, 
quesita verius inveniatur, inventa vero 
carius habeatur, et habita desiderabilius 
fruatur: quia in Christo omnis pleni- 
tudo corporaliter inhabitat, sine dubio, 
Divinitatis ;” &c.—Et passim. ] 

h [Deest manuscriptis quicquid in 
hae sectione infra legendum sit. ] 


i Bellarm. de Script. Eccles., verbo 
Paschasius. [Vid. Bellarm. op., ed. 
Col. Agr. 1617, tom. vii. col. 121.— 
‘* Hic auctor primus fuit, qui serio et 
copiose scripsit de veritate Corporis et 
Sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia con- 
tra Bertramum presbyterum, qui fuit 
ex primis qui eam in dubium reyo- 
cavit.”’ ] 

k Sirmondus, in vita Paschasii operi- 
bus ejus Lutetie excusis prefixa. 
{ Vid. Paschasii op., ed. Lut. Par. 1618, 
Vit. ad fol. secund. sub init.—Ingenii 
ΘΙ; ὥϑζον Se ss el ee 
Genuinum Ecclesiz Catholice sensum 
ita primus explicuit, ut viam czteris 
aperuerit, qui de eodem argumento 
multi postea scripsere. ] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI. 51 


ventum erat. Recitabo nonnulla illius Testimonia. Christus C A P. 
(ait!) “reliquit nobis hoc sacramentum visibilem' figuram 
et characterem Carnis et Sanguinis, ut per hee mens γῆς, 
nostra ad invisibilia et spiritualia capessenda per fidem 
uberius nutriatur.” Rursus™: Oportet “spiritualia sacra- 

menta palato mentis et gustu fidei [digne] percipere.” 

Item": “Dum nihil carnale in eo sapimus, sed* spirituales, ?[“imo.”] 
totum spiritualiter intelligentes, in Christo manemus.” Et 

paulo post®: “Caro Christi et Sanguis sumitur spirituali- 

ter.” Deinde?: “Sapere secundum carnem, mors est; et 

tamen veram Christi Carnem spiritualiter percipere, vita 

eterna est.” Iterum’%: “Non carnaliter” (inquit) ‘ Caro 

et Sanguis Christi percipiuntur, sed spiritualiter.” In qui- 

bus verbis docet, Coenze mysterium non carnaliter sed spiritu- 

aliter accipi, ac sic etiam intelligi debere; ignotum vero 

fuisse veteri Ecclesiz illud corporale et orale transubstantia- 

tionis somnium. Que vero huic libro, astu et opera cujus- 

dam (haud dubie) superstitiosi et falsarii hominis, (sicut hoc 
communiter in veterum scriptis fieri consuevisse Erasmus 

passim conqueritur,) inserta et supposita sunt,—fabulosa 
queedam, de visibili specie Corporis Christi in forma infantis, 

et digiti carnis crudz,—Paschasii nomine indigna sunt; qui 

non aliam doctrinam de Eucharistid tradere profitebatur, 

quam qualem ex antiquis patribus didicerat, et non ex apo- 

eryphis et fabulosis miraculorum narrationibus. 

XXX. Illorum autem, quos in hoc seculo scripsisse me- Amalarius, 
moravimus, testimonia in medium producere erit oper Sel a 
pretium. Amalarius ita prefatur™: “In omnibus, que 
‘1 [Vid. Paschasii Radberti lib. de quam quod ore carnis sentitur: aliud 
Corp. et Sang. cap. iv.—Op., ed. Lut. videre, quam quod oculis istis carneis 
Par. 1618, col. 1565.—Ibidem Pas- monstratur. Disce quia Deus Spiritus 
chasius addit: ‘Est autem figura vel  illocaliter ubique est: intellige quia 


character hoc quod exterius sentitur;  spiritualia hee, sicut nec localiter, 
sed totum veritas, et nulla adumbratio, 510 utique nec carnaliter ante conspec- 


quod intrinsecus percipitur.’’ | tum Divine Majestatis in sublime 
m [Ibid. cap. ii. ubi supra, col. feruntur. Cogita, igitur, si quidpiam 
1559. | corporeum potest esse sublimius, cum 
n [Cap. v. ubi supr. col. 1567. ] substantia panis et vini in Christi 


© [Ibid.—Addit: “Bibimus quoque Carnem et Sanguinem eflicaciter inte- 
et nos spiritualiter, ac comedimus rins commutatur: ita ut deinceps post 
spiritualem Christi Carnem, in qué  consecrationem jam vera Christi Caro 


vita zterna esse creditur.’’ ] et Sanguis veraciter credatur, et non 
P [Ibidem. ] aliud quam Christus, panis de ceelo, a 
4 (Hee ipsissima verba non inventa credentibus estimetur. | 

sunt. Vid. autem cap. viii. col. 1572. t Pref. in lib. de Eccles. Offic. 

—Unde, O homo, disce aliud gustare, [Vid. Amalar. Fortunat., Metens. 


COSIN. - G 


1 [** que- 
dam.”’ | 


° 
2‘ [| sacra= 
mentum 
sunt.’’ } 


Rabanus, 
A.D. 825. 


3T “opus.” ] 


4 [“ de- 
monstra- 
vit.”” } 


82 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


scribo, suspendor virorum sanctorum atque piorum patrum 
judicio: interim dico que sentio. Que aguntur in celebra- 
tione Missz, in sacramento Dominic passionis aguntur, ut 
Ipse precepit. . . . . Idcirco presbyter, immolans panem 
et vinum et aquam, in sacramento” (seu vice) “ est Christi; 
panis, vinum, et aqua, in sacramento Carnis Christi et San- 
guinis Ejus. Sacramenta,” enim, “ debent habere similitu- 
dinem aliquam earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt. 
Quapropter similis sit sacerdos Christo, sicut panis et liquor 
similia sunt Corpori et Sanguini Christi. Sic est immolatio 
sacerdotis in Altari quodammodo ut Christi immolatio in 
Cruce.” Iterum’: “Secundum quendam modum, sacra- 
mentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est!” “Si enim 
sacramenta quandam! similitudinem earum rerum, quarum 
sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non 
essent: ex hic autem similitudine plerumque jam ipsarum 
rerum nomina accipiunt.” Rursus: “ Sacramenta ad hoe 
valent, ut nos perducant ad ipsas res, quarum sunt sacra- 
menta’.” Que ex verbis 5. Augustini", et plane ad mentem 
purioris Ecclesiz, scripsit Amalarius. 

XXXI. Rabanus Maurus, nobilissimus ejusdem temporis 
doctor, (cui nec Italia similem, nec Germania pepererat 
eequalemY,) luculentam hance suam confessionem edidit* : 


Ὡς Maluit Dominus Corporis et Sanguinis Sui sacramenta 


fidelium ore percipi, et in pastum eorum redigi, ut per visi- 
bile Corpus® invisibilis ostenderetur effectus. Sic(ut) enim 
cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus et vegetat, ita etiam 
Verbum Dei intus animam nutrit et roborat.” Item: “ Ex 
terre fructibus voluit hac sacramenta confici, ... ut, sicut 
Ipse Deus invisibilis in carne visibili ad salvandos mortales 
mortalis apparuit, ita etiam ex materid visibili rem invisi- 
bilem congrue ipsis demonstraret*.” ‘ Hujus rei sacramen- 
tum ... de mensd Dominica assumitur quibusdam ad vitam, 
quibusdam ad exitium: res vero ipsa omni homini ad vitam, 


diacon., de Eccl. Offic. lib. i. preefat. ; « (Conf. num. xix. hujus capitis, 
ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. xiv. p.935.]  p. 71. ] 
S Lib. i. de Eecles. Off. c. 24. [ubi Y Trithemius, de Scriptor. Eccl. 


supr. p. 956. ] [ Vid. Rabani Mauri op., ed. Col. Agr. 
τ [Addit Amalarius: “Sacramen- 1626, tom. 1. p. 4; inter testimonia 

tum Sanguinis Christi Sanguis Christi de Rabano, num. xx.} 

est: ita et sacramentum Fidei Fides x Rabanus Maurus, de Instit. Cler. 


est.’’ | ]. 1. c. 31. [Op., tom. vi. poi Ly 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTL&E. 83 


nulli ad exitium, quicunque! ejus particeps fuerit; id est, CAP. 
Christo capiti membrum associatus fuerit in regno cceelesti : Onl 
quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti. Sacra- cunque 
mentum enim ore percipitur; virtute sacramenti interior &™-”] 
homo satiatur.” Et, “sicut in nos id convertitur, quum 

illud? manducamus et bibimus, sic et nos in Corpus Christi? [cum 
convertimur, dum obedienter et pie vivimus.” “ Sumunt co 
ergo fideles bene et veraciter Corpus Christi, si Corpus 
Christi non negligant esse: fiunt* Corpus Christi, si volunt $[“fiant.”] 
vivere de Spiritu Christi.” Quze omnia cum novo pontifi- 
ciorum dogmate nequaquam congruunt; et ab ed, quam 

dicunt Paschasii, sententid maxime discrepant. Propter 

hee autem et similia, ab autoribus pontificiis’, qui quarto 

et sexto post seculo scripserunt, Rabanus tanquam erroneus 
rejicitur. Sed cogitare debuissent se, non modo Rabanum, 

verum etiam omnes prisce Ecclesiz doctores simul cum 
Rabano, condemniasse’. 

XXXII. Johannes Erigena, popularis noster, (quem Al- Joh. Eri- 
fredus rex sibi ac suis liberis praceptorem constituit, et ad δ Ὁ 560. 
inchoatam Oxonii academiam adornandam misit,) dum in 
Galliis ageret, ubi Carolo Calvo regi acceptissimus fuit, 
libro de Corpore et Sanguine Domini conscripto*, non dis- 
similem doctrinam exposuit; eamque clarissimis Scripture 
S. ac veterum patrum testimoniis comprobavit. Sed postea, 
in Malmesburiense coenobium se conferens, quum Dionysii 
librum de Hierarchia, quem Latinum fecit, interpretaretur, et 
doctrinam tum primo pullulantem de carnali Christi in Eucha- 


¥Y Gul. Malm. A.D. 1200. [Forsitan 
male citat Cosinus Gulielmum Malms., 
quem meminisse quidem Rabani 
Mauri minime liquet. |—Et Tho. Wald. 
A.D. 1400. [Vid. lib. de Sacer. Euch. 
cap. lxii—Doctrinal., ed. Ven. 1571, 
tom. li. p. 103.—Hoc de facto sustinuit 
Rabanus: idcirco merito reprobatus, 
qui etiam planius hoc dixit libro suo 
“ De Institutis Clericorum ;’’ &c. ] 

z {In margine MSS. Dunelm. et 
Cestrens. addita sunt hee que sequun- 
tur verba: ‘ Non tam alii delirarunt, 
quam mala fide egerunt, qui seculo 
jam proxime elapso illud ipsum Pas- 
chasii Radberti opusculum, quod Ra- 
banus refutavit, sub mentito Rabani 
titulo orbi venditarunt.’’ Porro citat 
MS. Cestrens. ‘‘Rabanus de sacra, 


ὅσα. 


4 Qui ducentis post annis sub Leone 
IX. papa damnatus est ab iis qui pro 
Metusiastis pugnabant, Lanf. in Ber. 
[Vid. D. Lanfranci lib. de Corpore 
et Sanguine Domini, cap. 4; ap. Bibl. 
Patr. Max., tom. xviii. p. 765; item, 
Lanfranci op., ed. Lut. Par., 1648. 
p- 234.— Lanfrane. Tempore sancti 
Leonis Pape, delata est heresis tua 
(Berengarii) ad apostolicam sedem. 
Qui cum synodo presideret, ἅτ... 
Ane Aas Eee Igitur, cum a quodam 
Remensi Clerico Romam perlatas re- 
citator legeret, intellecto quod Joan- 
nem Scotum (Erigenam) extolleres, 
Paschasium damnares, communi de 
eucharistia fidei adversa sentires, pro- 
mulgata est in te damnationis senten- 
tia privans te communione sancte 
ecclesie ;’’ &c. 


2 


Walafri- 
dusStrabo, 
A.D. 860. 


Bertra- 
mus, Pres- 
byt. et 
Abb., 
A.D. 860. 


84 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


ristid preesentid taxaret, a male feriatis discipulis, quorundam 
monachorum impulsu, graphiis confossus est®: quamvis illum 
non multo post inter sanctos martyres alii‘ collocarint. 

XXXIII. Walafridus Strabo, eodem fere tempore, ad 
hune modum scripsit*: “Itaque Christus ...... in Coena, 
quam, ante traditionem Suam, ultimam cum discipulis ha- 
buit, post paschee veteris solennia, Corporis et Sanguinis Sui 
sacramenta in panis et vini substantia eisdem discipulis tra- 
didit; .... . et acarnalibus ad spiritualia, a terrenis ad 
celestia, . . . . ab imaginibus ad veritatem, docuit trans- 
eundum.” 

XXXIV. De sententia Bertrami (qui et Ratramnus, sive 
Ratramus, a quibusdam fortassis non recte appellatur) satis 
constat, ex libro quem jussu Caroli Calvi imperatoris (cu 
equidem, et bonis omnibus, propter summam eruditionem et 
vitee sanctitatem, carus erat et venerabilis) de Corpore et 
Sanguine Domini erudite conscripsit. Quum enim ex Pas- 
chasii libello homines aliquot turbari ccepissent, aliis alia 
(ut fit) subinde affirmantibus, tandem eorum altercationibus 


> Anton. [ Florent. archiep., Chron.}] quos docebat graphiis, ut fertur, per- 


tit. xvi. cap. 2. § 3. [ed Lugd. 1586, 
par. ii. p. 600.—‘‘ Hoc tempore, ut 
refert Vincent. spec. historiz, post 
Helinandum claruit Joannes Scotus, 
vir perspicacis ingenii et mellitz facun- 
diz. Qui dudum concrepantibus un- 
dique bellorum fragoribus in Franciam 
ad Carolum Calvum transierat: cu- 
jus rogatu Hierarchiam Dionys., Wc. 
Ss © «)*s ,c  Hic;/succedentibus 
annis, munificentia Elfredi allectus, 
venit in Angliam, et apud monaste- 
rium Melberiense a pueris, quos do- 
cebat, graphiis (ut fertur) perforatus, 
martyr existimatus est....... (p. 
601.) Et subdit Vincent. ubi supra: 
quod hie Joan. Scotus philosophus, 
ut dicit Lanfrancus, in fide desipuit; 
unde liber ejus de Eucharistia lec- 
tus in synodo Vercellensi celebrata 
sub papa Leone nono damnatus est, 
eodem anno quo et se Lanfrancus ab 
errore Berengarii purgavit. Idem Jo- 
annes super Hierarchiam Dionysii 
commentum fecit.’’ |—Vincent. [Spe- 
cul. Historial.] lib. xxiv. cap. 42. [ed. 
Venet. 1591. fol. 337.--“ Hoc tem- 
pore claruit Johannes Scotus, vir per- 
Spicacis ingenii; &c........ Hic 
succedentibus annis . . apud 
monasterium Malmesberiense a pueris 


foratus, et martyr estimatus est;’’ &c. | 
—Et alii. 

¢ Malmesb. de gestis Reg. Angl., 
lib. ii. [cap. 4, de Alfredo rege; ap. 
Rerum Anglicarum Scripteres post 
Bedam, &c., ed. Francof. 1601, p. 
45.—Hoe tempore creditur fuisse Jo- 
annes Scotus, vir perspicacis ingenil; 
Etiam martyr estima- 
tus est; quod sub ambiguo ad injuri- 
am sancte anime non dixerim: cum 
celebrem ejus memoriam sepulerum in 
sinistro latere Altaris, et epitaphii pro- 
dant versus, scabri quidem et moderni 
temporis lima carentes, sed ab antiquo 
nen adeo deformes: 

‘Clauditur hoe tumulo sanctus so- 

phista Joannes, 

Qui ditatus erat jam vivens dogmate 

miro; 

Martyrio tandem Christi conscen- 

dere regnum, 

Quo, meruit, sancti 

secula cuncti.’ 

4 De Reb. Eccl. c. 16. [Vid. Walafr. 
Strab. de Exordiis et Incrementis Re- 
rum Ecclesiasticarum, cap. Xvi.; ap. 
Specul. Miss, &c. a Joanne Coch- 
lxo collect., ed. 8vo. Venet. 1572, fol. 
67, 68. ] 


regnant per 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIE. 85 


permotus imperator duas ipse Bertramo proposuit quies- 
tiones: 1. An, quod in Ecclesia fidelium ore sumitur, Cor- 
pus et Sanguis Christi in mysterio seu figura fiat? 2. An 
ipsum naturale Corpus, quod de Marii Virgine natum est, 
passum, mortuum, et sepultum, quodque ad dexteram Dei 
Patris consedit, sit illud quod ore fidelium per sacramenti 
mysterium quotidie sumitur? Quarum prime Bertramus 
affirmative respondet, secunde vero negative; atque tantum 
ait inter utrumque Corpus esse discrimen, quantum est inter 
pignus et eam rem pro qua pignus traditur. ‘ Claret” (in- 
quit®) “guia panis ille vinumque figurate Christi Corpus et 
Sanguis existit.” ...“ Secundum creaturarum substantiam‘, 
quod fuerunt ante consecrationem, hoc et postea consistunt.” 
..... © Namé& substantialiter panis Christus non est.”.... 
Et, “si® nulla sub figura mysterium illud peragitur, jam 
mysterium non rite vocitatur.”....... “ Vinum* quoque, 
quod sacerdotali consecratione Christi Sanguinis efficitur 
sacramentum, aliud superficie tenus ostendit, aliud interius 
continet. Quid enim aliud in superficie quam substantia 
vini conspicitur?”.... “ Mutata* sunt ista secundum aliud 
quam secundum corpus, ac per hoc non id sunt quod in veri- 
tate videntur, sed aliud quod non sunt secundum propriam 
existentiam:” (facta enim sunt spiritualiter Corpus et San- 
guis Christi:) “non quod duarum sint existentiz rerum 
inter se diversarum, [Corporis videlicet et Spiritus,] verum 
una eademque res; secundum aliud species panis et vimi con- 
sistit, secundum aliud autem Corpus et Sanguis Domini.” . . 
. . » “ Unde! secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, 
juxta vero poteutioris virtutem substantiz mentes fidelium 
et pascunt, et sanctificant.’” Et, quum alia quamplurima in 
hunc sensum tum ex 8. Scriptura tum ex antiquis patribus 


© Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Dom., 
parte prima, [quest. 1; ap. Henrie. 
Petri Micropresbyticon, sive Elenchum 
Vet. Theologorum, ed. Basil. 1550, p. 
511. 

f [bid. part. ii., [quzst. 2; ubi supr. 
p- 519.—Addit Bertramus: “ Panis et 
vinum prius extitere, in qua etiam spe- 
cie jam consecrata permanere videntur. 
Est ergo interius commutatum Spiritus 
Sancti potenti Virtute: quod fides aspi- 
cit, animam pascit, eternz vite sub- 
stantiam administrat.”’ | 


s (Vid. par. 1. quest. 1, p. 514. ] 

h [ Ibid.—Bertramus subjungit:... 
**quoniam mysterium dici non potest, 
in quo nihil est abditum, nihil a cor- 
poreis sensibus remotum, nihil aliquo 
velamine contectum.”’ } 

i [Ibid.]} 

k {Ibid., p. 515; ubi plenius datum 
est hoc argumentum, cujus sententiam 
Cosinus paucioribus explicat verbis 
identidem paululum mutatis. | 

1 [{Ibid., sub fin. quest. 1; ubi 
supr. p. 519.] 


CHASE? 
Ve 


86 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


produxisset, in fine, calumniz occurrit, quam eo tempore 
Paschasium secuti recte sentientibus intentadrunt ; quasi vi- 
delicet docerent in sacramento, non Corpus et Sanguinem 
Christi, sed nuda tantum signa, imaginem, speciem, et figu- 
“Nec ideo,” (ait™,) “ quoniam ista dicimus, 
putetur in sacramenti mysterio Corpus Domini et Sangui- 
nem Ejus non sumi; quando fides, non quod oculis videt, 
sed quod credit, accipit: quoniam est spiritualis esca, et spi- 
ritualis potus, spiritualiter animam pascens, et eterne satie- 
tatis vitam tribuens.” Non enim simpliciter et absolute de 
reali veritate, sine qua mysterium esse non potest, sed de 
pseudo-reali existentia rerum sub speciebus in aére penden- 
tibus, et de carnali preesentid, tota queestio instituta est. 
XXXV. Que omnia quum Romani inquisitores et patres 
Tridentini concoquere nullo modo possent, in Indicem Li- 
brorum Prohibitorum®, tanquam damnatum penitus auc- 
torem, Bertramum amandirunt. Professores vero Duacen- 
ses, quum remedium istud paulo violentius esse animadver- 
terent, quodque cause pontificie magis obfuturum quam 
opitulaturum esse vererentur, ad alias artes (que a censori- 
bus librorum, atque indicis expurgatorii concinnatoribus 
Belgicis, probatz sunt) huc confugiendum censuerunt. 


ram, exhiberi. 


“ Liber 1116 Bertrami, (inquiunt®,) “quum jam szpe recu- 


sus sit, et lectus a plurimis, ac per interdictum nomen om- 
nibus innotuerit,” “ emendatus tolerari queat.” ‘“Fuit,” enim, 
Bertramus “catholicus presbyter, ac monachus Corbeiensis 
Ccenobii, Carolo Calvo carus ac venerabilis.”” Et, quum “in 
catholicis veteribus alus plurimos feramus errores, extenue- 
mus, excusemus, EXCOGITATO COMMENTO” (en fidem homi- 
num !) “ perseepe negemus, et commodum sensum eis affin- 
gamus, dum opponuntur in disputationibus, aut in conflic- 
tationibus cum adversariis,—non videmus, cur non eandem 
eequitatem et diligentem recognitionem mereatur Bertramus: 


m [Ubi supr. par. ii, quest. 2, p. p. 17.—Bertrami liber, qui inscribitur: 


525. 

4 ee Librorum Prohibit. in fine 
Concilii Trid. auctoritate Pape editus, 
in lit. B. [Vid. Indic. librorum pro- 
hibit. cum regulis confectis, per patres 
a Trident. synodo delectos, auctoritate 
sanctiss. ἢ. N. Pii IV. Pont. Max. 
comprobatum, lit. B; ed. Anty. 1570, 


De Corpore et Sanguine Christi.] 

° Index Expurgat. Belg. jussu et 
auctor. Phil. II. Hisp. Regis atque 
Albani Ducis consilio concinnatus, 
fann. 1571; ed. 8vo. Hanov. 1611,] p. 
54, v. Bert. [§ ‘ Ut liber Bertrami Pres. 
de Corp. et Sang. Domini tolerari 
emendatus queat.’’ ] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 87 


ne heretici ogganniant, nos antiquitatem pro ipsis facientem 
exurere et prohibere: ........ quin et illud metuimus, ne 
liber iste, non solum ab heereticis, verum immorigeris quoque 
catholicis, ob interdictum avidius legatur, odiosius allegetur, 
et plus vetitus quam permissus noceat.” Quodnam igitur 
hic excogitatum est ab illis commentum? ubi in Bertra- 
mo? legitur: “ Que a se differunt, idem non sunt: Corpus 
Christi, quod mortuum est, et resurrexit, et immortale fac- 
tum jam non moritur,... zternum est, nec ulterius' passibile ; 
hoe autem, quod in Ecclesia celebratur, temporale est, non 
eternum, corruptibile est, non incorruptum.’—Postreme 
huic sententiz suum hunc commodum sensum affingunts, ut 
intelligatur “ de speciebus sacramenti corruptibilibus, aut de 
re ipsd et usu sacramenti, qui non contingit, nisi in presenti 
seculo.” Aut, si hoc commentum non sufficiat, haud male 
et inconsulte omittantur omnia hec: delendum vero est 
“ visibiliter,” et legendum “ invisibiliter.” ‘ Secundum crea- 
turarum substantiam, quod prius fuerunt ante consecra- 
tionem, hoc et postea consistunt,” explicandum est, ‘‘ secun- 
dum externas species,” id est, “accidentia panis et vini.” 
Quamvis aperte fateantur, “ Bertramum tunc temporis ne- 
scivisse accidentia ista absque omni substantii subsistere, et 
cetera quee subtilissime et verissime posterior ztas per 8. δ. 
addiderit.” Quanto vero facilius und liturd hbellum inte- 
grum delevissent ; quemadmodum in indice suo expurgatorio 
censores Hispani rem totam breviter et per compendium 
confecerunt! “ Deleatur” (inquiunt') “ tota epistola Udal- 
rici, episcopi Augustani, de ccelibatu cleri; et” totus liber 


P {Bertrami lib. de Corp. et Sang. 
Dom. par. ii. quest. 2; ubi supr. p. 
522. | 

4 {Index Expurg. Belg. ubi supra, 
p-57:... Tametsi non diffiteat{ ur] Ber- 
tramum tunc temporis nescivisse exacte 
accidentia ista absque substantia omni 
subsistere, et cetera que subtilissime 
ct verissime posterior tas per S.S. ad- 
diderit. 

In Bertramo presbytero de Corpore 
et Sanguine Christi in Eucharistia de- 
lenda : 

Fol. 1137, versu 2, legendum invisibi- 
liter pro visibiliter ; et infra, versu 36, 
*Secundum creaturarum substantiam, 
quod prius ferunt ante consecra- 


tionem, hoe et postea consistunt,’ ea- 
plicandum est, Secundum externas spe- 
cies sacramenti. 

Folio 1140, versu 25, ‘ Hoc autem, 
quod in Ecclesia celebratur, temporale 
est, non zternum,’ eaplicandum est, Se- 
cundum species sacramenti corrupti- 
biles, aut de re ipsa et usu sacramenti, 
qui non contigit nisi presenti in se- 
culo. |} 

τ Index Expurg. Hisp. D. Gasp. 
Quiroge Card. et Inquisit. Gen.,in fine 
lit. O.—[Una cum Indice Expurg. 
Belg. edit. Hanoy. 1611; ubi supr. p. 
495.— Item, ed. Madriti, 1584, fol. 183, 
verbo Orthodoxographa. | 





CA FP. 


1 [pro 
“nec ulte- 
rius,” le- 
gitur jam 
non,” 


2[‘‘Item.’’ ] 


Ω 
<> 
ae) 


Herigerus 
Abbas, 
A.D. 980. 


88 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALT MANDUCATIONE 


Bertrami presbyteri de Corpore et Sanguine Domini penitus 
auferatur.” Quod quid aliud est, quam (ut olim adversus 
gentes dixit Arnobius*) “ scripta publica intercipere, et veri- 
tatis testificationem timere?”? Nam, quod Sixtus Senensist, 
et Antonius Possevinus",—librum hune de Corpore et San- 
guine Domini ab Cicolampadio, sub titulo Bertrami pres- 
byteri, scriptum esse, asserunt,—id sane omnem falsitatem 
superat. 

XXXVI. Pervenimus ad seculum decimum ; in quo, pre- 
ter multa* illa catholicorum patrum dicta, que contra nova- 
tores aliquos de Corpore et Sanguine Christi congessit He- 
rigerus abbas Lobiensis, habemus etiam Paschalem Anglo- 
Saxonum homiliam’, publice olim in Ecclesus nostris legi 
solitam. Quzenam vero illis temporibus de hoc religionis 
capite apud nos recepta fuerit doctrina, tum ex tota ill4 con- 
cione non obscure colligitur, tum ex illi preesertim ejusdem 
parte, in qui inter naturale Christi Corpus et hostiam con- 
secratam varia ostenduntur discrimina, aperte cognoscitur. 
Nam ad hunc modum populum universum instituit : “ Mul- 
tum interest inter Corpus in quo passus est Christus, et Cor- 
pus quod in hostid consecratur. Corpus quidem, in quo 
Christus passus est, ex Mariz Virginis carne natum est, ac 
sanguine, ossibus, cute, nervis, et membris humanis, atque 


s Arnob., lib. iii. [Disputat. adv. 
Gentes; ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. iii. 
p. 466.—Nam intercipere scripta, et 
publicatam velle submergere lectionem, 
non est deos defendere, sed veritatis 
testificationem timere. | 

t Sixt. Sen. pref. in Bibl. Sanct. 
[ed. Lugd. 1575, p. vii.—Sic proxi- 
mis annis perniciosum Cicolampadii 
volumen adversus sacramentum Cor- 
poris Christi invulgarunt sub titulo 
Bertrami presbyteri de Corpore et San- 
guine Domini. | 

® Possey. prol. in Appar. Sacr. [ed. 
Venet. 1603. tom. i. Lectori p. vi.— 
Q&colampadius vero contra divinam 
Eucharistiam sub nomine Bertrami 
presbyteri de Corpore et Sanguine li- 
brum scripsit ad Carolum Magnum. } 

x [“ Sigebert. de Script. Eccl. cap. 
137.”—Not. in marg. ad MS. Du- 
nelm.—Vid. etiam Possevini Appar. 
Sacr., tom. ii. p. 24.—Herigerus Abbas 
Lobiensis... . congessit etiam adver- 
sus Ratbertum complura catholicorum 


patrum scripta de Corpore et Sanguine 
Domini. j 

Y Homilia Paschalis Anglo-Sax., 
A.D. 990, impressa Lond, et MS. in 
publ. Cantabr. Acad. bibliothecé.— 
[ Vid. Elfrici Test. Antiq.—‘A Sermon 
of the Paschall Lambe,’ &e.; ed. 8vo. 
Lond. by John Day, (no date,) fol. 17, 
18.—*Much is betwixt the body 
Christ suffered in, and the body that 
is hallowed to housell. The body truly 
that Christ suffered in was born of the 
flesh of Mary, with blood, and with 
bone, with skin, and with sinews, in 
human limbs, with a reasonable soul 
living: and his ghostly body, which 
we call the housell, is gathered of many 
corns, without blood, and bone, without 
limb, without soul: and therefore no- 
thing is to be understood therein bodi- 
ly, but all is ghostly to be understood.” 
—Conf. Divers Ancient Monuments in 
the Saxon Tongue, &c., published by 
William L’Isle, 4to. ed. Lond. 1638.— 
Hom. in die S. Pasche, p. 6. ] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 89 


anima rationali, constat: at spirituale Ejus Corpus, quod 
hostiam appellamus, ex multis granis collectum est, sine 
sanguine, sine ossibus, membris, et animé.” Deinde?’: 
“Christi Corpus, quod semel mortuum est, et a morte resur- 
rexit, deinceps nunquam morietur, sed eternum est et im- 
passibile: hostia vero ista temporaria est, corruptibilis, in 
varias partes distributa, dentibus confecta, et in ventrem 
transmissa.” Denique?: ‘‘Mysterium hoc pignus est,et figura: 
Christi Corpus est veritas ipsa.” ‘Quod videtur, panis est: 
quod spiritualiter intelligitur, vita est.” Extat et alia Wul- 
fini episcopi concio ad clerum, sacerdotalis synodi inscrip- 
tionem preeferens; in qui eadem sententia et doctrina ita 
explicatur?: ‘“ Hostia illa est Christi Corpus, non corporaliter, 
sed spiritualiter: non Corpus in quo passus est, sed Corpus 
de quo locutus est, quando panem et vinum in hostiam con- 
secravit.” Quam et nos hodieque in Ecclesii nostra An- 
glicana catholicam veritatem profitemur. 

XXXVII. Hucusque igitur, per annos mille a nato in 
carne Christo, consentientia veterum patrum testimonia ad- 
scripsimus ; atque ea omnia paulo copiosius recitavimus, ut 
inde cuivis non cecutienti pateat veram et apostolicam de 
hoe mysterio doctrinam, ad hec usque tempora, fuisse ab 
omnibus conservatam, paucis tantum quibusdam exceptis, 
qui, post annos Christi octingentos, etiam de modo pre- 
sentice et perceptionis Corporis Domini disputare et querere, 
nondum tamen aliquid certi definire contra orthodoxam ve- 


2 (Ibid. fol. 19; ed. Lond. by John that eat it with belief ;’* &c. ] 


Day.— “Certainly Christ’s body, which 
suffered death and rose from death, 
* never dieth henceforth, but is eternal, 
and impassible: that housell is tem- 
poral, not eternal, corruptible, and 
dealed into sundry parts, chewed be- 
tween teeth, and sent into the belly :” 
&e. | 
2 (Ut supr. fol. 20.—‘ This mystery 
is a pledge and a figure: Christ’s Body 
is truth itself. This pledge we do keep 
mystically, until that we be come to 
the truth itself: and then is this pledge 
ended.” —Item, fol. 16.—** If we be- 
hold that holy housell after bodily 
understanding, then see we that it is a 
creature corruptible and mutable: if 
we acknowledge therein ghostly might, 
then understand we that life is therein, 
and that it giveth immortality to them 


Ὁ Homil. Sacerdot. Synodi, impr. 
Lond. cum Homil. Paschali.—[{ Vid. 
fragmentum AZ lfrici Epistole ad Wul- 
finum episc. Seyrburnens., “ taken out 
of Liber Penitentialis, lib. iv. cap. 30, 
intituled ‘4 Synode concerning Priestes τ᾿ 
which epistle is also in a Canon boke 
of the Churche of Exeter ;” ap. #)Ifrici 
‘ Testimonie of Antiquitie,’ &e. p. 48. τς 
“That holy housell is Christ’s body, 
not bodily, but ghostly : not the body 
which he suffered in, but the body of 
which he spake, when he biessed bread 
and wine to housel a night before his 
suffering ;” &c.—Conf. ‘ Divers ancient 
monuments in the Saxon tongue,’ &ce., 
by William L’Isle; lib. iv. Peniten- 
tial. ‘Concerning Priests-Synode ;’— 
et Mart. Jos. Routh, Script. Eccl. 
opuse., tom. ii. pp. 528, 529.) 


CA P. 
Ve 


Scriptores 
superior 
capite 
omissi. 


90 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


tustatis doctrinam, ausi sunt. Ne autem in immensum cres- 
cat hoc caput, cetera que huc faciunt in sequenti capite ad- 
notabimus, 


CAPUT VI. 


I., 11., IIL, nt ska. IN QUIBUS, VETERIS ECCLESIZ DOCTRINAM ET PRAXIN 
CUM DOCTRINA DE TRANSUBSTANTIATIONE PUGNARE, FUSIUS OSTENDITUR ; 
ATQUE AD OBJECTIONES PONTIFICIORUM, EX ANTIQUITATE FRUSTRA QUE- 
SITAS, RESPONDETUR. 


I. Inxis, gue hactenus usque ad annum Christi millesi- 


‘mum testimonia attulimus, potuissent et alia multa interseri 


ex antiquorum monumentis ; sed ea, per unumquodque se- 
culum, brevitatis studio omisimus: veluti sunt in seculo I., 
post Sacras Scripturas, scripta Clementis Romani‘, que a 
pontificiis landantur, sed transubstantiationi quamplurimum 
adversantur ; una cum ὃ. Ignatio? episcopo Antiocheno et 


martyre. 


In II. 5. Theophilus® ejusdem Antiochiz quartus 


post Ignatium episcopus; Athenagoras‘ etiam, et Tatia- 


nus’, 8. Justini martyris auditores. 


In III. Clemens Alex- 


andrinus", Origenis preceptor; et Minutius Felix: orator 


© Const. Ap., lib. vi. ο. 23. [ap. Patres 
Apost., Cotelerii ed. Amstel. 1724, 
tom. i. p. 357.—ay7l θυσίας τῆς δι᾽ ai- 
μάτων, λογικὴν Kal ἀναίμακτον καὶ THY 
μυστικὴν, ἥτις εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυ- 
ρίου συμβόλων χάριν ἐπιτελεῖται, τοῦ σώ- 
ματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος. 1--- ἴοι. 29. 
[c. 80. p. 861.---ττὴν ἀντίτυπον τοῦ βα- 
σιλείου σώματος Χριστοῦ δεκτὴν εὐχα- 
ριστίαν προσφέρετε, ἔν τε ταῖς ἐκκλησί- 
Gs ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς κοιμητηρίοι5. | 

a Epist. ad Philadelph. [ὃ 4; ap. 
Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 76.—pla γάρ 
ἐστιν ἣ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἕν 
αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐκχυθέν. 
εἷς καὶ ἄρτος τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐθρύφθη, καὶ ἕν 
ποτήριον τοῖς ὅλοις διενεμήθη. | 

e Ad Autol., lib. ii. [Quacunque 
laudet Cosinus sancti Theophili verba, 
latet.—Vid. autem lib. iii. ad Autol. ec. 
3; ed. δνο. (Jo. Christoph. Wolf.) Ham- 
burgi 1724, p. 278.---ἐπείτοι οὐκ ἂν 
ἐκεινήθης ὑπὸ ἀνοήτων ἀνθρώπων, .. .. 
φασκόντων ὧς κοινὰς ἁπάντων οὔσας τὰς 
γυναῖκας ἡμῶν, -«-. καὶ, τὸ ἀθεώτατον 
καὶ ὠμότατον, πασῶν σαρκῶν ἀνθρωπί- 
νων ἐφάπτεσθαι nuas.—Vid. etiam cap. 


15. p. 322.] 

f Legat. pro Christ. [8 13; ap. Just. 
Martyr. op., ed. Ben. Par. 1742, p. 
290.—rt δέ μοι ὁλοκαυτώσεων ὧν μὴ 
δεῖται 6 Θεός; καίτοι προσφέρειν δέον 
ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, καὶ τὴν λογικὴν 
προσάγειν λατρείαν. 

® In Diatess. [ὃ Tertius annus Domi- 
nicz praedicationis.— Vid. Evang. IV. 
harmoniam, Ammonio Alexand. auc- 
tore, ap. Monumenta SS. Patrum Or- 
thographa, ed. Basil. 1569, tom. i. p. 
758.—Accepto pane, deinde vini calice, 
Corpus esse Suum ac Sanguinem tes- 
tatus, manducare illos jussit et bibere, 
quod ea sit future calamitatis Suze 
mortisque memoria. | 

h De Strom., lib. i. [§ 10.—Op., ed. 
Oxon. 1714, tom. i. p. 343.—Swrip ἄρ- 
Tov λαβὼν πρῶτον ἐλάλησε καὶ εὐχα- 
ρίστησεν, εἶτα κλάσας τὸν ἄρτον προέ- 
θηκεν, ἵνα δὴ φάγωμεν λογικῶς. |—Et de 
Pedag., lib. ii. [6. 2; tom. i. p. 184.— 
μυστικὸν ἄρα σύμβολον ἣ γραφὴ αἵματος 
ἁγίου οἶνον avduaceyv.—V id, etiam, pp. 
177, 178. ] 

i In Octavio. [ Vid. ed. (Hamburgi) 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN 


Christianus. 


SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTLA. 


In IV. Eusebius Ceesariensis* episcopus ; 
vencus! presbyter Hispanus; Macarius Aigyptius™ ; 


91 


Ju 
Sanctus 


Hilarius Pictaviensis" episcopus ; Optatus® episcopus Milevi- 


tanus ; 
Cyrillus Alexandrinus’ ; 


1612, pp. 22, 23.—Quem colimus 
Deum nec ostendimus nec videmus ; 
immo ex hoc Deum credimus, quod 
Eum sentire possumus, videre non pos- 
sumus.—? 

k De Demonstr. Evang., 1. i. ο. 10. 
[ed. Par. 1628, p. 39.---τούτου δῆτα 
τοῦ θύματος THY μνημὴν ἐπὶ τραπέζης 
ἐκτελεῖν, διὰ συμβόλων τοῦ τε σώματος 
αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου αἵματος κατὰ 
θεσμοὺς τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης παρειληφό- 
τες. K.T.A. |—Et lib. viii. ο. 2. [ p. 580.--- 
πάλιν γὰρ αὐτὸς τὰ σύμβολα τῆς ἐνθέου 
οἰκονομίας τοῖς αὐτοῦ παρεδίδου μαθη- 
ταῖς, τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος ποι- 
εἶσθαι παρακελευόμενος. κιτ.λ.} 

1 De Hist. Evang., lib. iv. [v. 449, et 
seq.; ap. Galland. Biblioth., ed. Venet. 
1768, tom. iv. p. 626— 

Hee ubi dicta dedit, palmis Sibi 

frangere panem 

Divisumque dehinc tradit, sancteque 

precatus 

Discipulos docuit proprium Se tra- 

dere Corpus. 

Hine ealicem sumit Dominus vino- 

que repletum 

Magnis sanctificat verbis, potumque 

ministrat, 

Edocuitque Suum Se divisisse Cru- 

orem. 

Atque ait: Hic Sanguis populi de- 

licta remittet. 

Hune potate Meum: nam (veris cre- 

dite dictis) 

Posthae non unquam vitis gustabo 

liquorem, 

Donec, Wc. } 

™ Hom. 37. [ Vid. hom. xxvii.; ap. 
Gallandii Biblioth., tom. vii. p. 108. 
= οὔτε ἀνέβη αὐτῶν ἐπὶ καρδίαν ὅτι 
ἔσται βάπτισμα πυρὸς καὶ πνεύματος 
ἁγίου, καὶ ὅτι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προσφέ- 
ρεται ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος, ἀντίτυπον τῆς 
σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, καὶ of 
μεταλαμβάνοντες ἐκ τοῦ φαινομένου 
ἄρτου, πνευματικῶς τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Κυ- 
ρίου ἐσθίουσι, κιτ.λ.} 

n In Matt. [ Vid. cap. ix. ὃ 3.—Op. ed. 
Ben. Par. 1693, col. 648. —Omnes non 
credentes resurrexisse Christum, habi- 
turi non essent cibum vite. In fide 
enim resurrectionis sacramentum pa- 
nis ceelestis accipitur; &c.—Item, cap. 


Eusebius Emissenus ? ; 


Gregorius Nazianzenus?; 


Epiphanius Salaminensis*; ἢ. 


xxx. § 2. ubi supr. col. 740.—Sine quo 
[sc. Juda] pascha accepto calice et 
fracto pane conficitur. Dignus enim 
zternorum sacramentorum commu- 
nione non fuerat.|—Et, De Synod. [§ 
13, ubi supr. col. 1159.—Neque enim 
ipse sibi quisquam imago est: sed 
eum, cujus imago est, necesse est ut 
imago demonstret.—Vid. etiam lib. 
vill. de Trinitate, δὲ 13—16; ubi supr. 
coll. 954—957. | 

ο Contra Parm., lib. iii. [ Op., ed. Par. 
1679, p. 74.—Vinum a peccatoribus 
operariis et calcatur et premitur, et sic 
inde Deo sacrificium offertur; &c.— 
Vid. etiam, p. 82. ] 

P Homil. de Corp. Christ. [ Vid. Ho- 
mil. y. de Pascha, ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., 
tom. vi. p. 636.—Quia Corpus assump- 
tum oblaturus erat ex oculis nostris et 
sideribus illaturus, necessarium erat, 
ut nobis in hac die sacramentum Cor- 
poris et Sanguinis Sui consecraret, ut 
coleretur jugiter per mysterium quod 
semel offerebatur in pretium; &c..... 
Cum ad Altare.. . accedis, sacrum Dei 
tui Corpus et Sanguinem fide respice, 
honore mirare, mente continge, cordis 
manu suscipe, et maxime haustu inte- 
riore assume.—Et passim. ] 

4 Orat. funebr. de Gorgonia. [ Vid. 
Orat. viii. § 18.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 
1778. tom. i. p. 229.---εἶτα τῷ παρ᾽ 
ἑαυτῆς φαρμάκῳ τούτῳ τὸ σῶμα πᾶν 
ἐπιλείφουσα, καὶ εἴ πού τι τῶν ἀντιτύπων 
τοῦ τιμίου σώματος ἢ τοῦ αἵματος 7 
χεὶρ ἐθησαύρισεν. τοῦτο καταμιγνῦσα 
τοῖς δάκρυσιν" ὦ τοῦ θαύματος" ἀπῆλθεν 
εὐθὺς αἰσθομένη τῆς σωτηρίας, K.T.A. | 

τ In Joh. ]. 4. ο. 14. [ Vid. cap. ii.— 
Op., Luts 1638, tom. iv. p. 900.---διὰ 
ταύτην, οἶμαι, τὴν αἰτίαν παρεὶς εἰκότως 
ὁ Κύριος τὸ λέγειν αὐτοῖς, τίνα τρόπον 
ἐπιδώσει τὴν σάρκα Αὐτοῦ φαγεῖν, ἐπὶ 
τὸ χρῆναι πιστεύειν πρὸ τῆς ἐρέυνης κα- 
λεῖ, «.7.A.—Conf. cap. iii. p. 577.} 

sIn re es [§ 57.—Op., ed. Colon. 
1682, tom. ii. p. 60.—ép@uev yap ὅτι 
ἔλαβεν. ὁ Tarp (marg. lege Σωτὴρ) εἰς 
τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ, ὡς ἔχει ἐν τῷ εὐαγ- 
γελίῳ, ὅτι ἀνέστη ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ, καὶ 
ἔλαβε τάδε. καὶ εὐχαριστήσας εἶπε, τοῦ- 
τό μού ἐστι τόδε. καὶ ὁρῶμεν ὅτι οὐκ 
ἴσον ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐ τῇ ἐνσάρκῳ 


CAT 
ME 


CHAVE: 


92 


DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


Hieronymus'; Theophilus Alexandrinus®; et Gaudentius 
Brixiensis * episcopus. In V. Sedulius¥ presbyter Scoticanus ; 
Gennadius Massiliensis*; et Faustus Regiensis* episcopus. 
In VI. Fulgentius Africanus?; Victor Antiochenus®; Prima- 


εἰκόνι, οὐ TH ἀοράτῳ θεότητι, οὐ τοῖς 
χαρακτῆρσι τῶν μελῶν. τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστι 
στρογγυλοειδὲς καὶ ἀναίσθητον ὡς πρὸς 
τὴν δύναμιν. 

τ Contra Jovinian. [lib. ii. § 5. queest. 
i1i.—Op. ed. Vallars.Verone, 1735, tom. 
11. col. 330.—In typo Sanguinis Sui non 
obtulit aquam, sed vinum.—Item, ὃ 
17 ΟἿ GEYA BSE “excepto mysterio, 
quod in typum Suz passionis ex- 
pressit,”’ &c.|—Et in 31 Jer. [v. 10, 
11; tom. iv. col. 1063.—Super frumento 
et vino et oleo, de quo conficitur panis 
Domini et Sanguinis Ejus impletur 
typus; &c. |—Et in xxvi. Matt. [ν. 26 
—28.—Vid. tom. vii. col. 216.—Post- 
quam typicum Pascha fuerat imple- 
tum, et agni carnes cum apostolis com- 
ederat, assumit panem qui confortat 
cor hominis, et ad verum Pasche trans- 
greditur sacramentum, ut, quomodo in 
prefiguratione Ejus Melchisedec, sum- 
mi Dei sacerdos, panem et yinum offe- 
rens fecerat, Ipse quoque in veritate Sui 
Corporis et Sanguinis representaret. | 

“ Epist. Pasch. ii. [ap. Bibl. Patr. 
Max., tom. v. p. 849. —Quotquot fidei 
perducentis ad regna ccelorum partici- 
pes sumus, sanctze solennitatis susci- 
piamus adventum, et imminentia festa 
totius nobiscum urbis festivitate cele- 
bremus, clamante uno de sapientibus : 
Veni, comede in letitia panem tuum, 
et bibe in corde bono vinum tuum, 
quoniam complacuerunt Deo opera tua. 
—lItem, p. 851.—Cum et apostolus 
de Salvatore significet, quod hoe fecit 
semel Seipsum offerens, &c.—Vid. 
etiam Ep. i. p. 846.—Non recogitat 
(Origenes) aquas in baptismate mysti- 
cas adventu S. Spiritus consecrari, 
panemque Dominicum, quo Salvatoris 
Corpus ostenditur, et quem frangimus 
in sanctificationem nostri, et sacrum 
calicem, que in mensa Ecclesiz collo- 
cantur, et utique inanima sunt, per in- 
vocationeim et adventum Sancti Spiritus 
sanctificari. ] 

* In Exod. ii. [tract. ii. de Pasche 
observatione; ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. 
v. p. 947.—Cum panem consecratum 
et vinum discipulis Suis porrigeret, sic 
AIG ΡΟ ὁ νος Mandat, ut ... omnes ... 
exemplar passionis Christi ante oculos 
habentes quotidie, et gerentes in mani- 
bus, ore etiam sumentes, ac pectore, 
redemptionis nostr indelibili memaria 


teneamus; W&e..... Quod autem sa- 
cramenta Corporis Sui et Sanguinisin 
specie panis et vini offerenda consti- 
tuit, duplex ratio est... . . Deinde, 
quomodo panem de multis tritici gra- 
nis in pollinem redactis per aquam 
confici, et per ignem necesse est con- 
summari; rationabiliter in eo figura 
accipitur Corporis Christi; &c. ] 

¥ In Epist. S. Paul. [I. ad Corinth. 
cap. x., ed. Basil. 1528, fol. 56, D.— 
Carnalis Israel carnales hostias offere- 
bat: spiritualis spiritualia saerificia 
offert Christo.—Vid. etiam cap. xi. fol. 
57, D.] 

* De Dogm. Eccl. ec. 25, [ Vid. cap. 
Ixxv., ed. 4to. Hamb. 1614, p. 40.—In 
Eucharistia non debet pura aqua of- 
ferri, &c. ... quia et vinum fuit in 
redemptionis nostra mysterio, Xe. ... 
et aqua mixtum,. .. . quod de latere 
Ejus,lancea perfosso, aqua cum Sangui- 
ne egressa, vinum de vera Ejus Carnis 
vite cum aqua expressum ostenditur. | 

® Homil. 3in Epiph. [?—Vid. Fausti 
Epise. Serm. ad monachos v. in die S. 
Pasche, ὃ 1. ; ap. Veterum Scriptorum, 
&c., Edmundi Martene et Urs. Du- 
randi, ed. Ben. Par. 1733, col. 152.— 
Semper Christus credentibus immola- 
tur. Hic est ergo ille vitulus sagina- 
tus, &c.—Vid. etiam ὃ 2, et passim. | 

Ὁ De Fide, cap. 16. [ Vid. cap. xix.— 
Op., ed. Lugd. 1633, pp. 92, 93.— 
Cui nunc .. . cum Patre et Spiritu 
Sancto, cum quibus Illi est una Divi- 
nitas, sacrificium panis et vini, in fide 
et caritate, sancta Ecclesia catholica per 
universum orbem terre offerre non ces- 
sat; &c.|—Et Ep. ad Ferrand. [ Vid. 
Ep. de Baptismo Aithiopis moribundi, 
cap. xi. ubi supr. p. 210.—Qui ergo 
membrum Corporis Christi fit, quo- 
medo non accipit quod ipse fit, quando 
utique Illius fit verum Corporis mem- 
brum, cujus Corporis est in sacrificio 
sacramentum? Hoe ergo fit ille re- 
generatione sancti Baptismatis, quod 
est de sacrificio sumpturus Altaris. | 

ς Com. in xiv. Mare. [ Bibl. Patr. 
Max., tom. iv. p. 407.—In cujus rei 
typum, et commemorationem, divina 
illa mysteria juxta Illius mandatum 
peragimus et consecramus.... Per 
panis quidem symbolum Corporis 
Christi, per calicem vero ejusdem San- 
guinis participes se fieri. | 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 


sius’ episcopus ; et Procopius Gazzeus’. 


93 
In VII. Hesychius‘ 


presbyter Hierosolymitanus ; et Maximus 5 abbas Constanti- 


nopolitanus. 
Nicephorus: patriarcha; 


4 In [1] Epist. ad Cor. [Ὁ. x.—Bibl. 
Patr. Max.,tom. x. p. 188.—Panis quem 
frangimus, nonne participatio Corporis 
Domini est? Sic et idolorum panis 
dzmonum participatio est .... Side 
eodem pane manducamus unde idolola- 
tre, unum cum illis corpus efficimur... 
earnalis Israel carnales hostias offert, 
spiritualis spirituales, &c. | 

e In Genes. 49. [γάλα τὸ λαμπρὸν 
ὑποσημαίνει kal καθαρὸν τῆς μυστηριώ- 
δου τροφῆς᾽ παρέδωκε γὰρ εἰκόνα τοῦ 
ἰδίου Σώματος μαθηταῖς, μηκέτι τὰς νο- 
μικὰς καὶ δι᾽ αἱμάτων θυσίας προσιέμενος. 
τὸ τοίνυν ἄρτου τὸ καθαρὸν τῆς τρυφῆς 
διὰ τῶν λευκῶν ὀδόντων ἐδήλωσε.---ϑὶς 
Procopii Gazzi testimonium protulit 
Rey. J. S. Brewer, “ History of Popish 
Transubstantiation, Lond. 1840,” nes- 
cio ex quibus Grecis codicibus.—Conf. 
Procopii Comm. in Octateuch., Conr. 
Clausero Interpr., ed. Tiguri 1555, p. 
206. | 

f In Levit. i. 6. [Vid. lib. i. cap. 2; 
ed. Basil. 1527, p. 14.—Carnem au- 
tem Ejus, que ad comedendum inepta 
erat ante passionem, (quis enim come- 
dere cupiebat Carnem Dei?) aptam 
cibo post passionem fecit; si enim non 
fuisset crucifixus, sacrificium Corporis 
Ejus minime comederemus. Comedi- 
mus autem nune cibum,sumentes Ejus 
memoriam passionis. | 

εἰ In Hierarch. Dionys. [ Vid. lib. de 
Eccles. Hierarch., cap. 111. schol. S. 
Maximi; ap. S. Dionys. op., ed. Antv. 
1634, tom. i. p. 306.—otuBoda ταῦτα, 
καὶ οὐκ GAAGera.—|tem, p. 807. --ἀγάλ- 
ματά φησι τὰς εἰκόνας τῶν ἀοράτων καὶ 
᾿ μυστικῶν, ἤγουν τὰ συμβολικῶς τελού- 
μενα. 

h De Fide Orthod. [1. iii. ο. 3.—Op., 
ed. Par. 1712, tom. i. p. 206.—7@s δὲ καὶ 
ἡ μία φύσις τῶν ἐναντίων οὐσιωδῶν διαφό- 
ρων δεκτικὴ γενήσεται; πῶς γὰρ δυνατὸν 
τὴν αὐτὴν φύσιν, κατὰ ταὐτὸν, κτιστὴν 
εἶναι καὶ ἄκτιστον, θνητὴν καὶ ἀθάνα- 
τον, περιγραπτὴν καὶ ἀπερίγραπτον ;— 
Item, (lib. iv. cap. 13. p. 269.)---ὦῶἶσπερ 
γὰρ πάντα, boa ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς, TH TOU 
᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος ἐνεργείᾳ ἐποίησεν, 
οὕτω καὶ νῦν ἣ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνέργεια 
τὰ ὑπὲρ φύσιν ἐργάζεται, ἃ οὐ δύναται 
χωρῆσαι, εἰ μὴ μόνη ἣ πίστις. . . . 
. καὶ νῦν ἐρω- 
TGs, πῶς ὃ ἄρτος γίνεται Σῶμα Χριστοῦ, 
καὶ ὃ οἷνος καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ Αἷμα Χριστοῦ ; 


. . . . 5 


In VIII. Johannes Damascenus*, 


Tn TX 


et Hincmarus* archiepiscopus 


, > a a ~ 
λέγω σοι κἀγώ" Πνεῦμα Αγιον ἐπιφοιτᾷ 
καὶ ταῦτα ποιεῖ τὰ ὑπὲρ λόγον καὶ 
Μ 
ἔννοιαν. 

ἄρτος δὲ καὶ oivos παραλαμβάνεται" 
οἷδε γὰρ 6 Θεὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀσθέ- 
νειαν᾽ ὡς τὰ πολλὰ γὰρ, τὰ μὴ κατὰ τὴν 
συνήθειαν τετριμμένα, ἀποστρέφεται δυσ-- 
χεραίνουσα" τῇ οὖν συγκαταβάσει συνή- 
θει κεχρημένος, διὰ τῶν συνηθῶν τῆς 
φύσεως ποιεῖ τὰ ὑπὲρ φύσιν" Kal, ὥσπερ 
ἐπὶ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος, ἐπειδὴ ἔθος ἀνθρώ- 
ποις ὕδατι λούεσθαι, καὶ ἐλαίῳ χρίεσθαι. 
συνέζευξε τῷ ἐλαίῳ καὶ ὕδατι τὴν χάριν 
τοῦ Πνεύματος, καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸ λου- 
τρὸν ἀναγενήσεως, οὕτως, ἐπειδὴ ἔθος 
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἄρτον ἐσθίειν, ὕδωρ τε 
καὶ οἶνον πίνειν, συνέζευξεν αὐτοῖς τὴν 
αὐτοῦ θεότητα, καὶ πεποίηκεν αὐτὰ 
σῶμα καὶ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ἵνα διὰ τῶν συνη- 
θῶν, καὶ κατὰ φύσιν, ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ φύσιν 
γενώμεθα. 

σῶμά ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ἡνωμένον θεότητι, 
τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου σῶμα, οὐχ ὅτι 
τὸ ἀναληφθὲν σῶμα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατέρ- 
χεται. ἄλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος 
μεταποιοῦνται εἰς σῶμα καὶ aiua Θεοῦ" 
ei δὲ τὸν τρόπον ἐπιζητεῖς, πῶς γίνεται, 
ἀρκεῖ σοι ἀκοῦσαι, ὕτι διὰ Πνεύματος 
ἐπ He TAC cere) ΟΣ ΤΣ ὦ (p. 270.) καὶ 
πλέον οὐδὲν γινώσκομεν, GAN ὅτι 6 λό- 
γος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀληθής ἐστι, καὶ ἐνεργὴ, 
καὶ παντοδύναμος᾽ 6 δὲ τρόπος avete- 
ρεύνητος. (p. 271.) γίνεται τοίνυν, τοῖς 
πίστει ἀξίως μεταλαμβάνουσιν, εἰς ἄφε- 
σιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ 
εἰς φυλακτήριον ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος. 
Rented Son Sart διὸ μετὰ παντὸς φόβου. Kat 
συνειδήσεως Kabapas, καὶ ἀδιστάκτου 
πίστεως προσέλθωμεν" καὶ πάντως“ ἔσται 
ἡμῖν, καθὼς πιστεύομεν, μὴ διστάζοντες, 
k.7.A.—Et passim. } 

i De Cherub. c. 6. [Vid. lib. iii. 
cap. 6; ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. xiv. 
p- 94.—Quomodo idem dicitur Corpus 
et imago Christi? Quod enim est alicu- 
jus imago, hoe corpus ejus esse non 
potest, Xe. } 

k In vita S. Remig. [Hist. Sanc- 
torum per F. L. Surium, ed. Col. Agr. 
1576, tom. i. p. 290.—Lavat nos a pec- 
catis nostris quotidianis in Sanguine 
Suo, cum ejusdem beate passionis ad 
altare memoria replicatur, cum panis 
et vini creatura in sacramentum Carnis 
et Sanguinis Ejus ineffabili Spiritus 
sanctificatione transfertur. ] 


CLARE: 
Vi: 


CRAGE: 
Wile 


94 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


Rhemensis. Denique, in X. Fulbertus! episcopus Carnoten- 


sis. 


Quibus ad cumulum addenda sunt etiam ipsa concilia 


patrum, Aucyranum™, Neoczesariense”, et (preter Nicenum 
I,° superius adductum,) Laodicenum?, Carthaginense 4, Aure- 
lianense’, Toletanum IV.’, Bracarense‘, Toletanum XVI.", et 
Constantinopolitanum in Trullo *. Ex his enim omnibus con- 


' Epist. ad Adeodat. [Vid. Ep. i.; 
ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. xviil. p. 6.— 
(Dominus) defectum nostre fragilitatis 
miseratus, adversus quotidianas nostre 
prolapsionis offensas, sacrificii placa- 
bilis nobis providit expiamenta, ut quia 
Corpus Suum, quod semel pro nobis 
offerebat in pretium, paulo post a nos- 
tris visibus sublaturus fuerat in ecelum, 
ne sublati Corporis fraudaremur prz- 
senti munimine, Corporis nihilominus 
et Sanguinis Sui pignus salutare nobis 
reliquit, non inanis mysterii symbolum, 
sed, compaginante Spiritu S., Corpus 
Christi verum, quod quotidiana vene- 
ratione sub visibili creaturze forma in- 
visibiliter virtus secreta in sacris so- 
lemnibus operatur. | 

m Anno 314.—Can. 11. [ Labbe, tom. 
1. col. 1450. --- διακόνους ὁμοίως θύσαντας, 
μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἀναπαλαίσαντας, τὴν μὲν 
ἄλλην τιμὴν ἔχειν, πεπαῦσθαι δὲ αὐτοὺς 
πάσης" τῆς ἱερᾶς λειτουργίας, τῆς τε τοῦ 
ἄρτον ἢ ποτήριον ἀναφέρειν ἢ κηρύσσειν, 
κ'τ.λ.] 

® Ann. eodem.—Can. xiii. [ Labbe, 
tom. i. col. 1484.----ἐπιχώριο! πρεσβύ- 
τεροι ἐν τῷ κυριακῷ τῆς πόλεως προσ- 
φέρειν οὐ δύνανται, παρόντος ἐπισκόπου 
ἢ πρεσβυτέρων πόλεως, οὔτε μὴν ἄρτον 
διδόναι ἐν εὐχῇ, οὐδὲ ποτήριον, K.T.A. | 

ο In Act. lib. ii. cap. xxx. [Gelasii 
Hist. Cone. Nic.—Labbe, tom. ii. col. 
232.—em) τῆς θείας τραπέζης πάλιν Kay- 
ταῦθα μὴ τῷ προκειμένῳ ἄρτῳ καὶ τῷ 
ποτηρίῳ ταπεινῷς προσέχωμεν" GAN 
ὑψώσαντες ἡμῶν τὴν διάνοιαν πίστει 
νοήσωμεν κεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐκείνης 
τραπέζης τὸν ᾿Αμνὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν αἴρον- 
τα τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, ἀθύτως ὑπὸ 
τῶν ἱερέων θυόμενον" καὶ τὸ τίμιον αὐτοῦ 
σῶμα καὶ αἷμα ἀληθῶς λαμβάνοντας 
ἡμᾶς πιστεύειν ταῦτα εἶναι τὰ τῆς ἣμε- 
τέρας ἀναστάσεως σύμβολα. διὰ τοῦτο 
γὰρ οὔτε πολύ λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὀλίγον, 
ἵνα γνῶμεν ὅτι οὐκ εἰς πλησμονὴν, GAN 
εἰς ἁγιασμόν. 

P Aun. 864.—Can. xxv. [Labbe, 
tom. i. col. 1501.—671 od δεῖ ὑπηρέτας 
ἄρτον διδόναι, οὐδὲ ποτήριον εὐλογεῖν. 

4 Ann. 3%7.—Can. χχῖν. (Labbe, tom. 
ii. col, 1170.—Ut in sacramentis Cor- 


poris et Sanguinis Domini nihil amplius 
offeratur quam ipse Dominus tradidit, 
hoe est, panis et vinum aqua mixtum. 
Nec amplius in sacrificiis offeratur 
quam de uvis et frumentis. ] 

τ Ann, 641,—Can. iv. [ Labbe, tom. 
v. col. 382.—Ut nullus in oblatione 
sacri calicis nisi quod ex fructu vinez 
speratur, et hoc aqua mixtum, offerre 
presumat, quia sacrilegium judicatur 
aliud offerri, quam quod in mandatis 
sacratissimis Salvator instituit. ] 

5. Ann. 633.—Can. 17. [ Vid. capitul. 
xviii.—Labbe, tom. v. col. 1711.— 
Nonnulli sacerdotes post dictam oratio- 
nem dominicam statim communicant, 
et postea benedictionem in populo dant: 
quod deinceps interdicimus: sed post 
orationem dominicam et conjunctionem 
panis et calicis benedictio in populum 
sequatur, et tune demum Corporis et 
Sanguinis Domini sacramentum suma- 
tur, &c. ] 

* Ann. 675.—Cap. ii. [ Labbe, tom. 
vi. col. 564.—Nulli deinceps licitum 
erit aliud in sacrificiis divinis offerre, 
nisi juxta antiquorum sententias con- 
ciliorum, panem tantum et calicem 
vino et aqua permixtum. | 

u Ann. 693.—Cap. vi. [ Labbe, tom. 
vi. col. 1341.—Quia et Redemptoris 
verba testantur, quod panem integrum 
accipiens, (marg. acceperit,) non buc- 
cellam, quem post benedictionem con- 
frangens Suis particulatim discipulis 
dederit ; et Paulus apostolus similiter 
nihilominus narrat, quod panem acce- 
perit et gratias agens confregerit ; nec- 
non et illud, quod Christus de quinque 
panibus confractis turbam refecerit, 
guid aliud instituit nos, nisi ut panem 
integrum sumentes, super altaris ejus 
mensam benedicendum ponamus? &e. | 

x Ann. 681,—Can. xxxii. [Labbe, 
tom. vi. col. 1158.—e? τις οὖν ἐπίσκοπος 
ἢ πρεσβύτερος μὴ κατὰ τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν 
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τάξιν ποιεῖ, καὶ ὕδωρ 
οἴνῳ μιγνὺς οὕτω τὴν ἄχραντον προσάγει 
θυσίαν, καθαιρείσθω, ὡς ἀτελῶς τὸ μυσ- 
τήριον ἐξαγγέλλων καὶ καινίζων τὰ παρα- 
δεδομένα.) 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 95 


stat, transubstantiationis gangrenam nondum orbis Chris- 
tiani ecclesias depavisse; sed sanam ubique doctrinam de 
Corpore et Sanguine Domini, Ejusque vera (spirituali et 
mystici. tamen, non carnali) preesentid, una cum symbolis 
panis et vini, in substantid sud post consecrationem Eucha- 
ristiz remanentibus, retentam esse: et, quamvis utrumque 
loquendi genus a priscis patribus usurpatum fuerit, (videlicet, 
panem et vinum verum esse Corpus et Sanguinem Christi, in 
que mystice permutantur, eademque itidem esse veri Cor- 
poris et Sanguinis Christi signa, symbola, antitypa, pignora, 
imagines, figuras, similitudines, repreesentationes, et exem- 
plaria, quorum propria substantia non est ablata,) nullam 
tamen in sensu contrarietatem aut diversitatem fuisse. Ne- 
que enim tam nullius fidei erant, ut vacua hee et nuda tan- 
tum esse signa, aut elementa, crederent; neque tam crassi 
et rudis ingenil, ut sacramentalem et mysticam a carnali et 
naturali (prout nunc a transubstantiatoribus docetur) Christi 
presenti non distinguerent. Nam talem omnino permuta- 
tionem, sacramentis omnibus communem, hic fieri intellex- 
erunt, qua externa symbola in res ipsas divinas conversa esse 
non aliam ob causam dicuntur, quam quia vere et efficaciter 
illas representant, et fideles vere illarum participes fiunt, dum 
ea ore percipiunt; eamque, ex Spiritts S. virtute, et Christi 
Domini instituto, prerogativam divinam acquirunt, quam ex 
natura sui non habent. Atque hoc illud est, quod per mille 
et amplius annos de sacratissimo Eucharistiz mysterio, ex 
canonicis Scripturis, erudita ac sancta tradidit antiquitas. 
II. Sunt et alia nonnulla, ex quibus intelligi potest veteres 
non credidisse transubstantiationis commentum, aut pre- 
sentiam Corporis et Sanguinis Dominici accidentibus panis 
et vini ita alligatam esse, ut, quamdiu illa supersunt, et 
panem vinumque referunt, tamdiu etiam extra usum sacra- 
menti presens sit Christus. Certum enim est, apud complu- 
res veterum, usu receptum fuisse, ut, “ que’ post peractam 


Y Hesychius, lib. ii. in Levit. cap.$8. Angl. apud Spelmanum tredecimus 


—A.D. 600. [Vid. Bibl. Patr. Max., 
tom. xii. p. 86.—Sed hoe,quod reliquuin 
est de carnibus et panibus, in igne in- 
cendi precipit. Quod nunc videmus 
etiam sensibiliter in Ecclesia fieri, igni- 
que tradi quecunque remanere conti- 
gerit inconsumpta; &c.|—Can. Eccl. 


inter eos qui Bede titulum preferunt.— 
A.D. 700. [Vid. Henr. Spelm. Con- 
cilia, Decreta, &c. Brit. Eccl., ed. 
Lond. 1639, tom. i. p. 287.—Can. xiii. 
De Eucharistia. Si quis Eucharistiam 
negligentiz causa perdiderit, unum 
annum peeniteat, &c.... Qui neglexerit 


ΟΆῚ 
Vile 


96 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


communionem elementorum reliquiz superessent, in ignem 
conjectee comburerentur.”’ Et quis credat ullum Christi- 
anum Christum Dominum et Redemptorem suum, Ejusque 
Corpus et Sanguinem, si coram positum in potestate sua 
habeat, in ignem conjicere vel’ velle vel audere? Equidem 
facinus id fuisset non minus horrendum, quam quod olim 
perfidissimi Judei patrirunt. Cremiassent enim illi, quod hi 
cruci affixerunt,—ipsum verum ac naturale Corpus Christi, 
quod ex Maria Virgine assumpsit,—si modo transubstantia- 
tionem credidissent. Veteres itaque, qui fragmenta panis 
consecrati, reliquiasque vini in celebratione Eucharistiz im- 
consumpti, combussére, a fide et doctrini Romane (que nunc 
est) ecclesiz remotissimi fuerunt. Quod et itidem compro- 
batur ex poend illA canonica unicuique clericorum decreta, 
cujus? negligentid “vel mus vel aliud animal sacrificiuam” 
(seu panem consecratum) “comederit.” Ipsum vero natu- 
rale Christi Corpus a muribus aliisve brutis animalibus cor- 
rodi posse aut comedi, quis unquam nisi mentis inops ad- 
mitteret ?—Id, quod primos transubstantiationis patronos in 
maximas angustias conjecit. Et quidvis potius alind com- 
minisci maluerunt, quam ut illud admittere viderentur ; cum 
satis intelligerent, quam id abominandum sit, et Christo, 
fideque, et religione Christiana, indignum. Et tamen a fide 
Romana hodierna non abhorret: imo, ex hypothesi transub- 
stantiationis necessario quidem deducitur, Corpus Christi# 


Sacrificium, ut vermes in eo sint, quinquaginta diebus pceniteat. Qui 


ut colorem non habeant, saporemque, 
20 dies peeniteat, vel 30, vel 40; et in 
igne accendetur, Si usque ad terram 
ceciderit, unum diem pceniteat; ὅσο. } 
—Can. ejusd. Eccl. sub Edgaro Rege 
38us, ib,— A.D. 970, [Ubi supra, p. 
4.52.—Can. xxxviii. Docemus etiam, 
ut sacerdos semper habeat praeeparatam 
(prout opus fuerit) Eucharistiam, et 
hane in puritate custodiat, caveatque 
ne inveterescat. Sin diutius reservata 
fuerit quam oportuit, et ut nauseam 
pariat, comburetur tune in puro igne, 
condanturque cineres sub Altari, et 
noxz reus apud Deum componat. | 

2 Cone. Arelat. III. citat. a Gratiano, 
de Conseer, dist. ii—A.D. 640. [ Vid. 
can. xciv.—Corp. Jur. Can., ed. Par. 
1612, tom. i. fol. 2137.—Qui bene non 
custodierit Sacrificium, et mus vel ali- 
quod aliud animal illud comederit, 


autem perdiderit illud in Ecclesia, aut 
pars [jus ceciderit et non inventa fuerit, 
triginta dies peeniteat. | 

a Alex. Alens., lib. iv. 4. 45. πη. 1. 
art. 2; et q. 53. m. iii, [Nescio qua 
editione, aut summula quidem, usur- 
paverit Cosinus; cujus utraque citatio 
fallit—vVid. autem Alexand. Alens. 
Sum. Theol. par. iv. quest. xi. deman- 
ducatione Eucharistiea, membrum ii. 
art. 2. § 1; ed. Col. Agr. 1622, tom. 
iv. p. 380.—Consequenter quzritur, 
utrum Corpus Christi trajiciatur in 
ventrem creature irrationalis .... Re- 
spondeo:... Quidam opinantur, quod 
Corpus Christi continetur in illis speci- 
ebus inseparabiliter, quamdiu sunt sa- 
cramenta: hoc autem est, quamdiusalva 
est forma panis. Et dicunt quod, ubi- 
cunque ponantur species, sive in loco 
mundo, sive immundo, sive in ventrem 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 97 


CAPE: 


posse esse in ventre muris sub specie panis. Contraria vero 
VI. 


opinio non modo hodie a pontificiis non tenetur, sed, ne de- 
inceps teneatur, ipse etiam pontifex Romanus”, addita ex- 
communicaticnis poend, prohibuit: adeo ut dubitare “ illis non 
liceat, quin res sit de fide, quee a fide maxime abhorret. 

III. Sed videamus interim, quibus tandem fulcimentis (ab 
antiquitate frustra queesitis) hoc suum transubstantiationis 
dogma statuminatum eunt novi isti rerum incredibilium 
architecti. Solent illi plurima quidem ex prime et medic 
tatis patribus corradere testimonia; quibus probare conan- 
tur eos, de transubstantiatione panis et vini in Carnem et 
Sanguinem Christi naturalem, idem omnino et sensisse et 
docuisse quod hodie Romana ecclesia sentit, credit, ac docet. 
Ea igitur breviter excutiemus, ut inde adhuc plenius cognos- 

® catur venerandam antiquitatem et patrum scripta ne verbo 


muris, ibi est Corpus Christi... . Vide- 
tur mihi, quod prima opinio sit tenenda. 
Si enim canis vel porcus deglutiret 
hostiam consecratam, non video quare 
vel quomodo Corpus Domini non si- 
mul cum specie trajiceretur in ven- 
trem canis vel porci. |—Thom. in iii. 
q. 80. art. 3. [Sum. Theol. ed. Ve- 
net. 1596, tom. ii. p. 280.—Dicen- 
dum quod, etiamsi mus vel canis hos- 
tiam consecratam manducet, substantia 
Corporis Christi non desinit esse sub 
speciebus, quamdiu species illa2 ma- 
nent: hoc est, quamdiu substantia panis 
maneret, sicut etiam si projiceretur in 
lutum. Nec hoe vergitin detrimentum 
dignitatis Corporis Christi, qui voluit a 
peccatoribus crucifigi absque diminu- 
tione sue dignitatis: presertim, cum 
mus aut canis non tangat Ipsum Cor- 
pus Christi secundum propriam spe- 
ciem, sed solum secundum species 
sacramentales. Quidam autem dixe- 
runt, quod statim, cum sacramentum 
tangitur a mure vel cane, desinit ibi 
esse Corpus Christi: quod etiam dero- 
gat veritati sacramenti, &c.]—Et iniv. 
[Sentent.] d. ix. q.2. [Thom. Aquin. 
op., ed. Venet. 1593, tom. vii. fol. 26.— 
Si Corpus Christi per negligentiam, 
vel quocunque modo, in aliquem locum 
immundum projiciatur, non dicitur 
quod desinat esse sub speciebus Corporis 
Christi: ergo non oportet dici quod sub 
speciebus a brutis comestis desinat esse 
Corpus Christi: sed species possunt a 
brutis mandueari, ergo et Corpus 
Christi.—Et passim. ] 


COSIN. = 


b Greg. ΧΙ. in Director. Inquisit. 
p- i. n. 15. [scil. Nicolai Eymerici 
Direct. Inquisit., ed. fol. Rome, 1578, 
Ρ. 33.—§. Inhibitio facta de mandato 
Domini Gregorii XI. ne tres hic in- 
serti articuli de Corpore Christi dein- 
ceps predicentur sub pena excommu- 
nicationis. Miseratione divina, &c.... 
Predicati fuerunt tres articuli subse- 
quentes in effectu. Primus, quod, si 
hostia consecrata cadat, &c., . . specie- 
bus remanentibus, sub iis esse desinit 
Corpus Christi,et redit substantia panis: 
secundus, quod, si hostia consecrata a 
mure corrodatur, .. . . speciebus dictis 
remanentibus, sub iis desinit esse Cor- 
pus Christy ὅζοον τς. τον: Supplicato 
TOU UC τ Ὡς idem dominus noster 
Papa nobis .... commisit, quatenus 
auctoritate sua apostolica vobis man- 
daremus, ut . . . in dictis vestris pro- 
vinciis sub poena excommunicationis 
inhibeatis, nequis deinceps dictos ar- 
ticulos publice prasumat predicare. ] 
—Et p. ii. q. 10. [q. v. ubi supr. pp. 
196, 197.] 

e Vasq., Disp. 195. in [par.] iii. [Ὁ. 
Thome | cap. 5. [ed. Antverp. 1614, 
tom. 111, pp. 293, 294.—Verum non est 
cur negemus Corpus Christi etiam ab 
animalibus brutis manducari, &e... . 
Hoc enim est contra communem sen- 
sum Ecclesie, que species e loco 
sordido erutas tanquam verum sacra- 
mentum veneraretur, &c.. . . Imo, et 
Gregorius XI. . . . damnavit predic- 
tam sententiam, &c. ] 


98 ΡῈ SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


CAP. quidem unico novitati transubstantiationis patrocinari, sed 
VI. veram illam doctrinam, quam ab initio tradidimus, magni 
constantid in Ecclesid Christi retentam et custoditam fuisse. 

IV. Que vero ex veteribus huc trahunt testimonia, ad 


1[“ad  certa sua capita’ possunt omnia fere redigi; ne ad singula 
certas suas : - 5S : 
classes.’ Separatim prolixe nimis respondendum sit. 


cee V. Ad primam classem referenda sunt ea, quibus Eucha- 
1 ristia dicitur Corpus et Sanguis Domini. Resp. Sed ipsimet 


By eporsio patres passim sese explicant, et hanc suam loquendi rationem 
a estl- 


moniaIre- ita interpretantur, ut ea mystice et spiritualiter intelligatur ; 

ace quatenus sacramenta ex illd similitudine, quam cum rebus 
3 a : Z 

rilli Hier- habent quarum sacramenta sunt, plerumque ipsarum rerum 


os., Gr. Ξ cies ee 3 c eet 
Nazianz., Nomina accipiunt, “non rei veritate, sed significante mys- 


ecw, terio,” uti superius” ex Augustino® allisque late ostensum 
. Augus- ὴ : Ξ 
tini,et ali-est. Nemo enim negare potest, quin ea, que videntur, 


pe . figure sint et symbola; que autem non videntur, Corpus et 
ap. Vi. 4 spay i i 
§ 19.1 Sanguis Christi: atque adeo mysterium hoc ita esse compa- 


ratum, ut, quando in Eucharistié nobis dantur panis et vi- 
num, simul et eodem tempore dantur etiam Corpus et Sanguis 
Domini; quz in benedictz Eucharistiz celebratione non 
minus exhibentur quam adumbrantur. Hine igitur enata 
est locutio illa ecclesiastica:—Panis benedictus est Corpus 
Christi. 


Ir. . VI. Ad secundam classem ea pertinent testimonia, quibus 
Responsio na . Fie 
ad Test, προεστῶτες, et presbyteri, Christi Corpus ore sacro conficere 


S. es dicuntur: quemadmodum loquitur Hieronymus epistolé ad 
nymi ip. 5 4 i a ς 
ad Heliod. Heliodorum; et, preter alios, S. Ambrosius de iis qui myste- 


Ὁ ΘΗ Es ps ase τὴν : < 
ai Eva. Tus initiantur. Resp. Nempe, ad presbyterorum® preces et 


pe a benedictiones, panis communis factus est panis sacramenta- 
et 8S. Am- η- δ : . 
pros. deiis HS; qui, quando frangitur et manducatur, κουνωνία Corporis 


eee Christi est, adeoque sacramentaliter Corpus Christi recte 
3 τ: dicitur: nam non solum Corpus Domini representat, sed (ut 
see seepius jam dictum est) eo percepto vere quoque Corporis 
Dunelm. ] 





ἃ De Consecrat. dist. ii. c. Sicut. mortale, in cruce est suspensum, vo- 
[ Vid. potius cap. xlviii. Hoe est quod caturque ipsa immolatio Carnis, que 
diximus.—Gratiani Decret. par. iii.; ap. | sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, 
Corp. Jur. Can., ed. Par. 1612, tom. mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed 
i. col, 2109.—Item: Sicut ergoccelestis  significante mysterio: sic sacramentum 
panis, qui vere Christi Caro est, suo Fidei, quod Baptismus intelligitur, 
modo vocatur Corpus Christi, cum re- Fides est.—Conf. cap. Ixxxiv. Sicut ; 
vera sit sacramentum Corporis Christi, ubi supr. col. 2135.] 
Illius videlicet, quod visibile, palpabile, 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI®. 99 


Ejus participes efficimur. Ita enim Hieronymus ad Eva- CAP. 
grium®: “ Ad presbyterorum preces Christi Corpus Sanguis- = 
que conficitur :”’—id est, materia talis facta est, ut sumpta sit 
communio Corporis et Sanguinis Domini; qualis non esset, 

nisi preces ist preecessissent. Greeci dicunt κατασκευάζειν, 

et ἱερουργεῖν τὸ Σῶμα Κυρίου. Bene vero hic ait Chrysos- 
tomus': “ Non sunt opera humane facultatis, que propo- 
nuntur. Qui olim hee in 1Πὰἃ Coena fecit, idem et nunc ea 
operatur: nos autem (ὑπηρετῶν) ministrorum tantum ordi- 

nem tenemus. Ipse vero est, qui ea sanctificat, (καὶ μετασ- 
κευάζων) et transmutat.” 

VII. Pertinent ad tertiam classem ea, que adducuntur ex II. 
patribus, de conversione, mutatione, transmutatione, trans- ee 
figuratione et transelementatione, panis et vini in Eucha- S- Cypri- 
ristia, Hic vero mire gloriantur transubstantiatores, habere :: a 
se consensum totius antiquitatis. Resp. At respondendum Biusaue 


Sau nae Cyrilli, 
est, a non distributo ad distributum non valere consequen- Chrysost., 
tiam. Neque enim sequitur: fit mutatio, fit transmutatio, fit a Ee 


transelementatio, ergo fit etiam transubstantiatio; que in 4liorum. 
antiquorum scriptis nusquam reperitur. Nam, quia hoc 
sacramentum est, sacramentalis quoque mutatio intelligi 
debet ; qua ex pane et vino communi fit sacramentum Corpo- 
ris et Sanguinis Christi: quod tamen, nisi interim maneret 
panis et vini substantia, ex re terrend et ccelesti non consta- 
ret, ac proinde non amplius esset sacramentum. Quoniam 
igitur vulgaris panis per benedictionem convertitur in panem 
qui, a communi usu exemptus, in hunc usum sacrum ex 
instituto divino adhibetur, ut sit symbolum sacramentale, 


per quod reprsentetur Corpus Christi, in quo plenitudo 


Deitatis habitat corporaliter ; atque adeo, in alium ac nobili- 
orem statum translatus, fiat quiddam amplius quam quod 
erat antea; inde veterum nonnulli panem mutatum et trans- 


° §. Hieron. Ep. 85. ad Evagr. f §. Chrysost., Hom. 83. in S. Matt. 


[scil. Epist. exlvi., ad Evangelum.— 
Op., ed. Vallars. Veron, 1734, tom. i. 
col. 1075.—Nam, quum Apostolus 
perspicue doceat eosdem esse presby- 
teros quos episcopos, quid patitur men- 
sarum et viduarum minister, ut supra 
eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum 
preces Christi Corpus Sanguisque con- 
ficitur ?—Queris auctoritatem? Audi 
testimonium, “Xe. } 


[4]. Ixxxii. ὃ 5.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 
1727, tom. vii. pp. 788, 789.—kat μία 
ἡμῖν ἔστω ὀδύνη, τὸ μὴ μετασχεῖν ταύ- 
TNS τῆς τροφῆς. οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνθρωπίνης 
δυνάμεως ἔργα τὰ προκείμενα: 6 τότε 
ταῦτα ποιήσας ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ δείπνῳ, οὗτος 
καὶ νῦν αὐτὰ ἐργάζεται. ἡμεῖς ὑπηρετῶν 
τάξιν ἔχομεν. 6 δὲ ἁγιάζων αὐτὰ, καὶ 
μετασκευάζων, αὐτὸς, κιτ.λ.---- 14. etiam 
Hom. xxiv. in 1 Corinth. passim. | 


H 2 


ὉΤἹΑ Ῥ: 
ΠΕ: 





1S. Joh. 
“Teste 1 ΝΣ 
Pet. i. 3; 
1 Οοτ. ἰν. 
15; Rom. 
xii. 3 [2]; 
Eph. iv. 
22, [23, 
24]; Gal. 
vi. 15. 


100 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


mutatum esse dixerunt. Et est sane illa mutatio vere magna, 
eaque non naturalis, sed supernaturalis : non tamen substan- 
tialis, sive mutatio unius substantiz, que substantialiter esse 
desinat, in aliam que substantialiter esse incipiat ; sed muta- 
tio statis ac conditionis, que ipsam substantiam et propriam 
essentiam elementi non mutat.—Id, quod ex Sacra etiam 
Scriptura confirmatur; que supernaturalem rerum mutati- 
onem, aut conversionem hominum, quamyis substantialis 
non sit, ita tamen quasi substantialis esset, describere atque 
exponere solet. Sic, qui verbo, Spiritu, et fide Christi reno- 
vantur, “regenerari,” “converti,’ et “transformari,” di- 
cuntur',— exuere veterem hominem, et induere noyvum,’— 
esse ‘nova creatura;” sed in aliam substantiam converti, 
aut transubstantiari, non dicuntur. Retinent enim homines, 
ad hunc modum conversi, idem corpus humanum atque 
eandem animam rationalem quam prius habuerunt; utrius- 
que tamen status et conditio quin in melius mutentur, nemo 
Christianus negaverit. Quid, quod ipsi etiam patres has 
easdem μεταβολῆς; μεταποιήσεως, et μεταστοιχώσεως VOCES 
usurpant, quum de rebus alis loquuntur, que substantiam 
suam minime vel amittunt vel mutant? Sunt enim voces 
iste tam ample significationis, ut, quamvis aliquoties de- 
notent mutationem substantialem, plerumque tamen nonnisi 
moralem, aut mutationem qualitatum, conditionis, muneris, 
statis, et id genus alias indicent. Atque ad hunc modum 
usurpantur a patribus Grecis, (1. Irenzeo®, 2. Clemente Alex- 
andrino®, 3. Origene’, 4. Cyrillo Hierosolymitano, 5. Basilio}, 


8 1. Tren., 1. v.c. 10.[§ 1, 2.—Op., ed. 
Ben. Par. 1710, p. 304.—Quemadmo- 
dum oleaster, si tenuerit insertio- 
nem, et transmutetur in bonam olivam, 
oliva fit fructifera,.... sic et homines, 
&c..... Homo per fidem insertus, et 
assumens Spiritum Dei, substantiam 
quidem carnis non amittit, qualitatem 
autem fructus operum immutat, et aliud 
accipit vocabulum, significans illam 
que in melius est transmutationem: 
jam non caro et sanguis, sed homo spi- 
ritalis existens edicitur. ] 

h 2. Clem. Alex., J. iv. Strom. [ὃ 23. 
—Op., ed. Oxon. 1715, p. 631.—kal yap 
ἢ διδαχὴ μετοαρρυθμίζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον" 
μεταρρυθμοῦσα δὲ φυσιοποιεῖ: καὶ διή- 
νεγκεν οὐδὲν ἢ φύσει πλασθῆναι τοιόνδε 
ἢ χρόνῳ καὶ μαθήσει μετατυπωθῆναι. 


ὄμφω δὲ ὁ Κύριος παρέσχηται" τὸ μὲν 
κατὰ τὴν δημιουργίαν" τὸ δὲ κατὰ τὴν 
ἐκ τῆς διαθήκης ἀνάκτισίν τε καὶ ἀνανέ- 
wo. | 

i 3. Orig., Serm. ii. in Diversos, [in 
S. Joh. ii—Op., ed. Genebrardi, Par. 
1604, tom. ii. p. 276.—Sanctus itaque 
theologus, in Deum transmutatus, veri- 
tatis particeps, Domini Verbum subsis- 
tere in Deo principio, hoc est, Deum 
Filium in Deo Patre, pronuntiat. ] 

k 4, Cyril. Hier., Catech. 18. [ὃ 9. 
—Op., ed. Oxon. 1703, p. 268.—7d 
γὰρ σῶμα τοῦτο ἐγείρεται, ἐνδυσάμενον 
τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν μεταποιεῖται. | 

' 5. Basil. Exhortat. ad Bapt.[ Hom. 
xiii. § 3.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1722, tom. 
ii. p. 116.—& τοῦ θαύματος ! ἀνακαινίζῃ 
μὴ χωνευόμενος, ἀναπλάττῃ μὴ συντρι- 





| 








CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI#, 


101 


6. Greg. Nazianzeno™, 7. Nysseno”, 8. Cyrillo Alexandrino», 
9. Chrysostomo?, 10. Theodoreto, Theophylacto, et Cicu- 
menio‘,) ad denotandam, 1. resurrectionem corporum, 2. effi- 
caciam doctrine ccelestis, 3. sanctificationem hominis renati, 
4. immortalitatem carnis resuscitate, 5. poenitentiam anime 
peccatricis, 6. assumptionem nature humane in personam 


Christi, 


7. regenerationem sanctorum, 8. virtutem Gratiz 


Divine, 9. vim Baptismi et prestantiam caritatis, 10. rerum 


βόμενος. |—Et S.Chrys. Hom. v. de Pee- 
nit. [ Vid. ὃ 2.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1731, 
tom. ii. p. 310. —ral γὰρ βουλόμενός 
σοι δεῖξαι τοῦ πράγματος (νηστείας) τὴν 
δύναμιν, ἐδωκεν ἐξουσίαν αὐτῇ μετ᾽ ἀπό- 
φασιν, μετ᾽ ἀπαγωγὴν, τοὺς ἀπαγομέ- 
vous τὴν ἐπὶ θάνατον ἐκ μέσης ἀναρπάσαι 
THs ὁδοῦ, καὶ πρὸς ζωὴν μεταγαγεῖν. | 

m 6. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xl. [ Vid. 
§ 2.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1778, tom. i. 
p- 092.--τρισσὴν γέννησιν ἡμῖν οἶδεν 
6 λόγος" τὴν ἐκ σωμάτων, τὴν ἐκ βαπ- 
τίσματος, καὶ τὴν ἐξ avaoctdocews.—Item, 
§ 8, p. 696.—kal ταῦτα, οὐκ οὔσης δευ- 
τέρας ἄναγεννήσεως, οὐδὲ ἀναπλάσεως, 
οὐδὲ εἰς τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἀποκαταστάσεως, 
κιτ.λ.--- ἴθι, § 10, p. 698. Χριστὸν 
μεταπεποίημαι τῷ βαπτίσματι" K.T.A-— 
Item, ὃ 27. p. 712.---ὠἀφ᾽ his ἡμέρας με- 
ταποιῇ (τῷ βαπτίσματι, ) πάντες εἶξαν of 
παλαιοὶ χαρακτῆρες" K.T.A. ] 

n 7. Greg. Nyssen., lib. 2. contra 
Eunom. [Orat. ii. — Op., ed. Par. 
1638, tom. ii. p. 453.---μέλλων ἡμᾶς 
μεταποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ φθαρτοῦ πρὸς Td ἄφ- 
θαρτον, διὰ τῆς ἄνωθεν γεννήσεως, τῆς“ δι᾽ 
ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, κιτ.λ. ]—Homil. 
i. de Resur., [tom. iii. a 384.—yévyovev 
ἄλλη γέννησις, βίος ἕτερος, ἄλλο ζωῆς 
εἶδος, αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν μεταστοι- 
xelwors. |—Epist. ad Eustath. Latin. 
{Ὁ Letoium,| et Ambros. [Vid. Ep. ad 
Eustathiam, Ambrosiam, et Basilissam, 
tom. iii. p. 658.—é6 οὖν τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν 
πρὸς τὴν θείαν δύναμιν μεταστοιχειώσας, 
k.7.A.—Vid. etiam Epist. ad Let. ο. 1. 
tom. ii. p. 114. ἐκ παλιγγενεσίας μετα- 
στοιχειουμένους διὰ τῆς τοῦ λουτροῦ 
χάριτος. 

ο 8, Cyril. Alexand. Epist. Pasch. 
vi. [Op., ed. Lutet. 1638, tom. v. par. 
ii. p. 19.---τὴν κατερφθαρμένην τοῦ ἂν- 
θρώπου φύσιν εἰς καινότητα μεταρυθ- 
μίζων ζωῆς, «.7.A.]—vii. [ubi supr. p. 
91.—kal πάντα μεταρρυθμίσας τὰ ἐν ἡμῖν 
εἰς ἀμείνονα τάξιν, καὶ ἑδραιότητα, τὴν 
ἀρετὴν δὲ ὅλην ἀναμορφώσῃ τὴν φύ- 
σιν, ὡς καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀρχέτυπον εἰκόνα, 
καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ πεποίηται. |—xiv. | ubi supr. 


197. --μεταρρυθμίξων εἰς ἁγιασμὸν, 
ee τῇ πίστει Toy προσερχόμενον, 
K.T.A. | 

Ρ 9, S. Chrysost. Hom. xxiii. in Act. 
Apost. [§ 3.—Op., ed. Ben. 1731, tom. 
ix. p. 189.---μεγάλη τοῦ βαπτίσματος 
ἡ δύναμις" . οὐκ ἀφίησιν εἶναι av- 
θρώπους τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. ποίησον τὸν EA- 
ληνα πιστεῦσαι, ὅτι μεγάλη τοῦ Πνεύ- 
ματος ἡ δύναμις, ὅτι μετέπλασεν, ὅτι 
μετερρύθμισε. |—Idem, Hom. xxxiii. in 
1 Cor. [c. xii. § 6.—tom. x. p. 308.— 
μεγάλη yap αὕτη διδάσκαλος, καὶ ἱκανὴ 
καὶ πλάνης ἀπαγαγεῖν καὶ τρόπον με- 
ταρρυθμίσαι, καὶ πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν χει- 
ραγωγῆσαι, K.T.A. |} 

4 10. Theodoret. Dialog. ii. [Op., 
ed. Lut. Par. 1642, tom. iv. pp. 84, 85. 
—Opd. εἰ τοίνυν τοῦ ὄντος σώματος 
ἀντίτυπα ἐστὶ τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια, σῶμα 
ἄρα ἐστὶ καὶ νῦν τοῦ Δεσπότου τὸ σῶμα, 
οὐκ εἰς θεότητος φύσιν μεταβληθὲν, ἀλλὰ 
θείας δόξης ἀναπλησθέν. .. .. ... : 
Ἔραν. ὥσπερ τοίνυν τὰ σύμβολα τοῦ 
δεσποτικοῦ σώματός τε καὶ αἵματος ἄλλα 
μέν εἰσι πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως, 
μετὰ δέ γε τὴν ἐπίκλησιν μεταβάλλεται, 
καὶ ἕτερα γίνεται" οὕτω τὸ δεσποτικὸν 
σῶμα μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν 
μετεβλήθη τὴν θείαν.---Ορθ. ἑάλως αἷς 
ὕφῃνες ἄρκυσιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν 
ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς ol- 
κείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως. μένει γὰρ, K.T.A. | 
—Theophylact. in vi. ὃ. Joh. [Op., ed. 
Lut. Par. 1631, pp. 653, 654.—éo7ep 
οὖν φησὶν, ᾿Εγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν Πατέρα, τουτ- 
ἔστιν, ὡς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὅς 
ἐστι ζωὴ. οὕτω καὶ ὃ τρώγων με ζήσεται 
δι᾽ ἐμὲ ἀνακιρνώμενος, ὥσπερ καὶ μετα- 
στοιχειούμενος εἰς ἐμὲ τὸν ζωογονεῖν ἰσ- 
χύοντα. ]--- Εἰ Gicumen. in 1 Ep. 5. 
Pet. c. 1. [Comm: in. N. Test, ed. 
Par. 1631, tom. 11. p. 483.—ebdA0yn- 
τὸς ὁ Θεὸς. . .. διὰ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν 
ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναγεννή- 
σας ἡμᾶς, ἤτοι μεταποιῆσας, καὶ μετα- 
θέμενος εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν, K.T.A. |—Una 
cum multis 4}118, 


CA P-. 
δ ὧν 








102 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


CAP. denique multarum tum utilitatem, tum amplitudinem, poten- 
tiam, dignitatem, atque adeo mutationem in melius. Nec 
dissimiles reperiuntur loquendi rationes in patribus Latinis' ; 
quibus conversio panis et vini in Eucharistid non magis essen- 
tialis est aut substantialis, quam conversio hominis in Bap- 
tismo ad vite novitatem renati, sive (ut loquuntur ill) na- 
ture humane in statum nobiliorem et ccelestem mutate ; 
quee moralis est et mystica, nequaquam vero naturalis sub- 
stantiz conversio. Dixit eorum antiquissimus Tertullianus®, 
“Deum homini promisisse substantiam et corpus angelorum, 
hominesque ita transformandos esse in angelos, sicut angeli 
transformati sunt in homines.”’ Quis vero inde collegerit, 
aut angelos substantialiter sive essentialiter conversos esse in 
homines, aut corpus humanum ita transformatum iri in sub- 
stantiam angelicam, ut interim corpus humanum esse desinat, 
neque amplius homines sint, sed proprie et essentialiter fiant 


angeli? 


τ S. Aug.,1. iv. contra Crescon. cap. 
54, [4]. cap. lxiv.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 
1689, tom. ix. col. 515.—Homines con- 
gregatos die Pentecostes misso de czlo 
Spiritu Sancto implevit. Ibi uno die 
tria, alio quinque, millia credentium in 
Suum Corpus conversa suscepit. |—S. 
Ambr. de Myster. ο. 9. [ὃ 50.—Op., ed. 
Ben. Par. 1690, tom. ii. co). 338.—Pro- 
bemus non hoc esse quod natura forma- 
vit, sed quod benedictio consecravit: 
majoremque vim esse _benedictionis 
quam nature, quia benedictione etiam 
natura ipsa mutatur. |—Et de Sacer. 1. 
iv. c. 4. [ὃ 16.—tom. ii. col. 8369.—Non 
erat Corpus Christi ante consecra- 
tionem : sed post consecrationem dico 
tibi quia jam Corpus est Christi......... 
Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura: 
postea quam consecratus es, nova cre- 
atura esse ccepisti.|—Faustus Regi- 
ensis, sive Euseb. Emissen., de Pasch. 
55. [ Vid. Hom. v. de Corp. Christ.— 
Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. vi. p. 636.— 
Nam invisibilis Sacerdos visibiles 
creaturas in substantia Corporis et 
Sanguinis Sui verbo Suo secreta Boe 
tate(conivertitiy - τ - ours 
Te ipsum, qui jam in Christo es re- 
@erleratus, INterropars. |<) δὺς: 
In exteriore nihil additum est: et totus 
in interiore homine mutatus es. . . . 
ΤΠ ΑΥΘΕ ttre Ὁ. eve sacrum Dei tui Cor- 
pus et Sanguinem fide respice, honore 
mirare, mente continge, cordis manu 


Enimvero Tertullianus totus est in contrarium, ait- 


suscipe, et maxime haustu interiore 
assume: ..... 680 quod Eucharis- 
tie sacra perceptio non in quantitate, 
sed in virtute, consistat. |—Facundus, 
lib. ix. cap. ult. [cap. v.—Vid. Facundi 
lib. pro defensione trium capitulorum 
Conc. Chalced. ; ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., 
tom. x. p. 79; item, ap. Iac. Sirmondi 
op., ed. Par. 1696, tom. ii. col. 707.— 
Potest sacramentum adoptionis adoptio 
nuncupari: sicut sacramentum Corpo- 
ris et Sanguinis Ejus, quod est in pane 
et poculo consecrato, Corpus Ejus et 
Sanguinem dicimus. Non, quod pro- 
prie Corpus Ejus sit panis, et poculum 
Sanguis; sed quod in se mysterium 
Corporis Ejus Sanguinisque contine- 
ant, &c. ] 

5. Tert. contra Marc., 1. iii.c. 9. [Op., 
ed. Lut. Par. 1664, p. 402.—Et utique 
si Deus veram quandoque substan- 
tiam angelorum hominibus pollicetur: 
“‘ Erunt,’”’ enim, inquit, ‘‘sicut angeli;’’ 
cur non et Deus meus veram substan- 
tiam hominum angelis accommodavit, 
unde unde sumptam ἢ b By ὁ : 
Si Creator facit angelos spiritus, et 
apparitores Suos ignem flagrantem, 
tam vere spiritus quam et ignem; 
Idem illos vere fecit et carnem: ut 
nunc recordemur, et hereticis renun- 
tiemus, Ejus esse promissum, homines 
in angelos reformandi quandoque, qui 
angelosin homines formavit aliquando. | 
—24 et 26. [ falso citat. | 


» 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO ΕΥΘΗΑΒΙΞΤΙπ. 103 


que, “angelos‘ ita in homines conversos fuisse, ut interim 
angeli permanerent, nec propriam suam substantiam amitte- 
rent :”? quemadmodum de pane Eucharistico locuti sunt alii, 
“eum conversum esse in Corpus Christi, etiamsi interim sit 
quod erat,” ut Ambrosius"; “nec recedat a natura sua,” ut 
Theodoretus; “nec desinat esse substantia panis,” ut Gela- 
sius adserit. Et hoc ipsum veteres illi omnes, qui suis di- 
cendi modis de panis et vini permutatione locuti sunt, absque 
dubio designatum iverunt. Testes enim omnes, a Transub- 
stantiatoribus adducti, de mutatione tantum accidentali, 
morali, et mystici, loguuntur: de substantiali mentionem 
nullam faciunt. Transubstantiatio rei est pontificiis substan- 
tialis transmutatio. Et nos quidem transmutationem elemen- 
torum damus: substantialem vero transmutationem queri- 
mus, nec reperimus usquam. 

VIII. Ad quartam classem ea referri possunt testimonia, 
quee de tactu et visu Corporis Christi loquuntur, et San- 
guinem Ejus in mysteriis nos haurire dicunt. Resp. Sed 
non abnuimus nonnulla apud Chrysostomum aliosque pa- 
tres inveniri, que emphatice, imo vero hyperbolice, de Eu- 
charistia prolata sunt. Ea autem, nisi dextre capiantur, 
incautos homines facile in errores abducent. Fuit hoc pris- 
corum patrum, et nostrum est etiam, studium ac summa 
cura, populum Dei instruere, ne in externis symbolis oculos 
defigant, sed ut in illis Corpus et Sanguinem Christi men- 
tibus contemplentur, et. “sursum habentes corda” ccelesti 
illo pabulo toti vescantur. Perit enim omnis sacramenti 
fructus, si in symbolis hereamus. Hine igitur factum est, 
ut sanctissimi patres (quo hee auditorum animis vehemen- 
-tius et efficacius imprimerent) de typis tanquam si essent 
ipsa antitypa, oratorum more, multa enuncient, que si stric- 
tius ad limam revocentur, examen non sustineant. Tale 
illud auctoris qui Cypriani nomen gerit*: “Cruci heremus, 
Sanguinem sugimus, et intra ipsa Redemptoris nostri vulnera 
linguam figimus, quibus interius et exterius rubricamur.” 


* De Carne Christi, cap. iii. [Tertul. « Superius citati. [Conf., cap. v. δὲ 
op., ubi supr. p. 308.—Quod ergo an- 17, 21, 22.] 
gelis inferioribus Deo licuit, uti, con- x Sermo de Coené Domini. [Vid. 


versi in corpulentiam humanam, angeli _ tractat. Arnoldi Carnotens. abb. Bone- 
nihilominus permanerent, hoe tu po- Vallis; ap. S. Cypriani op., ed. Oxon. 
tentiori Deo auferes? &c. ] 1682, append. ii. p. 41.] 


CAP. 
VI. 


Ve 
Resp. ad 
Test. S. 
Chirysos- 
tomi, Cy- 
rilli Alex., 
etaliorum. 





104. pE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


CAP. Tale illud ChrysostomiY: “In mysteriis Sanguis ex Christi 
latere hauritur :’—“ hoe admirabili Sanguine lingua cruenta- 
tur’.” Iterum?: “Conspicis Dominum immolatum, ...et turba 
circumfusa pretioso illo Sanguine intingitur.. .. Qui cum Patre 
sursum sedet, in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus 
pertractatur.” “Ipsum vides, Ipsum tangis, Ipsum come- 
dis.’ ‘“*Neque enim angelos, neque archangelos, . . sed 
ipsum horum omnium Dominum, tibi ostendo.” Rursus?: 
“Nos inunam Secum massam reducit, et reipsd nos Corpus 
Suum efficit, . . nec Se tantum videri permittit, sed et tangi, 
et manducari, et dentes Carni Suz infigi; adeo ut per cibum, 
quem nobis largitus est, in Carnem Suam convertamur.’’ 


Tale illud Augustini®: “Gratias agamus, non solum nos 


Christianos factos esse, sed” etiam ‘“ Christum.” 


Υ Homil. in Encen. [Vid. Homil. ix. 
de Poenit.—S. Chrysost. op., ed. Ben. 
Far. 1718, tom. ii. ΡΡ- 849, 850. --τοῦ 
πυρὸς τοῦ πνευματικοῦ κατερχομένου, 
τοῦ Αἵματος ἐ ἐν τῷ κρατῆρι εἰς σὴν κά- 
θαρσιν ἐκ τοῦ ἀχράντου πλευρᾶς κενου- 
μέσου: Kee τοῦ θείου σώματος 
μεταλαμβάνειν νομίζετε, καὶ ὡς τῆς θείας 
καὶ ἀχράντου πλευρᾶς ἐφαπτόμενοι τοῖς 
χείλεσιν, οὕτω τοῦ Σωτηρίου Αἵματος 
μεταλάβωμεν.] 

z Hom. Ixxxii. in Matth. [4]. Hom. 
Ixxxiii. §§ 4, 5.—Op., tom. vii. pp. 787, 
788.—idov αὐτὸν ὁρᾷς, αὐτοῦ ἅπτῃ, αὐτὸν 
ἐσθίεις, καὶ σὺ μὲν ἱμάτια ἐπιθυμεῖς ἰδεῖν. 
αὐτὸς δὲ ἑαυτόν σοι δίδωσιν, οὐκ ἰδεῖν 
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἅψασθαι, καὶ φαγεῖν, 
καὶ λαβεῖν ἔνδον... .. τίνος οὖν οὐκ 
ἔδει καθαρώτερον εἶναι τὸν ταύτης ἀπο- 
λαύοντα Tis θυσίας ; ποΐας ἡλιακῆς ἂκ- 
τῖνος τὴν χεῖρα τὴν ταύτην διατέμνουσαν 
τὴν σάρκα, τὸ στόμα τὸ πληρούμενον 
πυρὸς πνευματικοῦ, τὴν γλῶσσαν τὴν 
φοινισσομένην Αἵματι φρικωδεστάτῳ ; | 

a Lib. de Sacerd. iii. [$$ 3, 4.—Op., 
tom. i. p. 382.—érav γὰρ ἴδῃς τὸν Κύ- 
ριον τεθυμένον καὶ κείμενον, kal τὸν ἱερέα 
ἐφεστῶτα τῷ θύματι καὶ ἐπευχόμενον, 
καὶ πάντας ἐκείνῳ τῷ τιμίῳ φοινισσομέ- 
νους Αἵματι, ἄρα ἔτι μετὰ ἀνθρώπων εἶναι 
νομίζεις; . . . . ὃ μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἄνω 
καθήμενος, κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην τοῖς 
ἁπάντων κατέχεται χερσὶ, καὶ δίδωσιν 
αὑτὸν τοῖς βουλομένοις περιπτύξασθαι 
καὶ περιλαβεῖν. 

> Hom. li, in 5. Matth. [4]. Hom. 1. 
—Op., tom. vii. Ῥ. 516.—ovd τὸ ἱμάτιον 
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ Sua, οὐχ ὥστε 
ἅψασθαι μόνον, GAN ὥστε καὶ φαγεῖν 
καὶ ἐμφορηθῆναι. |—Et Η om. ]1xXxxiii. 
[ut supra, not. ad lit. z. } 


Denique, 


© Hom. xxiv. in 1. ad Corinth. [ὃ 5. 
— Op. -, tom. x. p. 218.---ἀλλὰ τοῦτό σοι 
(τὸ τοῦ Βασιλέως Σῶμα) νῦν ἔξεστιν ἐπὶ 
γῆς ἰδεῖν. οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλους οὐδὲ a ἀρχαγ- 
γέλους, οὐδὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ οὐρανοὺς οὐρα- 
νῶν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν τούτων σοι δείκνυμι 
Δεσπότην. 

4 Hom. χῖν. in [S.] Joh. [4]. Hom. 
xlvi. § 3.—Op., tom. viii. p. 272.—avé- 
μιξεν ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἀνέφυρε τὸ Σῶμα 
αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς. . . .. καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ 
πόθον ἐπιδεικνὺς τὸν περὶ 7; ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἰδεῖν 
αὐτὸν μόνον παρέσχε τοῖς ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἅψασθαι, καὶ φαγεῖν, καὶ ἐμ- 
πῆξαι τοὺς ὀδόντας τῇ σαρκί. |—Et, 
Ixxxiii. in [S.] Matth. [§ 5.—Op., 
tom. vii. p. 788.---ἀναφύρει ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν, 
kal ov τῇ πίστει μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτῷ 
τῷ πράγματι Σῶμα ἡμᾶς αὐτοῦ κατασ- 
κευάζει. τίνος οὖν οὐκ ἔδει, (k.T.A.—ut 
supr. not. ad lit. Ζ.}... φρικωδεστάτῳ; 
ἐννόησον ποίαν ἐτιμήθης τιμὴν; ποίας 
ἀπολαύεις τραπέζης ; ὅπερ οἱ ἄγγελοι 
βλέποντες φρίττουσι, καὶ οὐδὲ ἀντιβλέ- 
ψαι τολμῶσιν ἀδεῶς διὰ τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκ- 
φερομένην ἀστραπὴν, τούτῳ ἡμεῖς τρε- 
φόμεθα, τούτῳ ἀναφυρόμεθα, καὶ γεγό- 
γαμεν ἡμεῖς Χριστοῦ Σῶμα ἕν, καὶ “Σὰρξ 
μία ΛΟ μον μητέρες πολλάκις εἰσὶν, at 
μετὰ τὰς ὡδῖνας ἑτέραις ἐκδιδόασι τρο- 
pots τὰ παιδία" αὐτὸς δὲ τοῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἠνέσ- 
χετο, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς τρέφει οἰκείῳ 


g \ / Ces c ~ 
Amati, καὶ διὰ πάντων ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ 


συμπλέκει... .. ἑνὶ γὰρ ἑκάστῳ τῶν 
πιστῶν avaulyvuow ἑαυτὸν διὰ τῶν μυσ- 
τηρίων, καὶ ods ἐγέννησεν ἐκτρέφει δι᾽ 
ἑαυτοῦ" K.T.A. | 

© Tract. xxi.in [S.] Joh. [ὃ 8.—Op., 
ed. Ben. Par. 1680, tom. iii. par. ii. col. 
459.] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO ΕΥΘΗΛΆΙΞΤΙπ. 105 


tale illud Leonis‘: “In illA mystica distributione .... hoc 
impartitur, . .. ut in Carnem Illius transeamus.” Equidem, 
si cavillari quis vellet, tam vere nos in Christum, Ejusque 
Carnem in panem Transubstantiari, ex his posset defendere, 
quam panem in Corpus, et vinum in Sanguinem Illius, sub- 
stantialiter converti. Sed protestantes, quibus non licet esse 
sophistis, hzec et similia patrum dicta candide (ut zequum 
est) interpretantur. Non enim concionatorum verba, que 
per hyperbolen szpissime enuntiantur, eo rigore accipienda 
sunt, quo primum ad aures auditorum perveniunt. Neque 
enim de pane transubstantiato, sed de pane Sacrato et Mys- 
tico, hujusmodi locutionibus usi sunt patres ; idque fecerunt, 
1. ut mysterii dignitatem, quam summam et incomparabilem 
esse omnes fideles agnoscunt, amplificarent atque extollerent : 
2. ne communicantes externis symbolis inhererent, sed ad 
res significatas intenti essent, quarum, in usu sacramenti 
legitimo, verissime participes redduntur: 3. denique, ut ma- 
jore cum pietate, reverentid, et ardore, ad tantum mys- 
terium celebrandum accenderentur. Atque in eundem mo- 
dum phrases illas hyperbolicas accipiendas esse, etiam pa- 
tres ipsi, cum ad interpretationem descendunt, satis aperte 
declarant. 

IX. Postremo’, quum iidem ipsi sancti patres, qui de pane 
et vino S. Eucharistiz, quasi de ipso Corpore ipsoque Sanguine 
Domini, quandoque loquuntur, (usitati scilicet, ubi de sacra- 
mentis sermo fit, phraseologid,) eundem panem et vinum 
Eucharisticum, typos, symbola, signa, figuram Corporis et 
Sanguinis Christi, szpissime vocent,—vel hinc manifesto 
liquet, eos cum protestantibus, non cum transubstantia- 
toribus, sentire. Possumus enim, incolumi nostré de sacra- 
mento Eucharistiz sententid, prioribus illis uti locutionibus, 
quas sibi favere pontificii arbitrantur, modo eas (uti par est) 
sacramentaliter intelligamus. Posterioribus vero uti nemo 
potest, quin eo ipso, quod iis utatur, figmentum transubstan- 
tiationis evertat ; quum ista duo,—panem in Corpus transub- 
stantiari, et esse simul typum, symbolum, signum, figuram 

* Ep. xxiii. [Vid. Labb. Concil.,tom. caro nostra factus est, transeamus. ] 

iv. col. 48.—In illa mystica distributi- s [Hoe capitulum nonum manu- 
one spiritalis alimoniz hoc impartitur, scriptis Dunelm, et Cestrens. omnino 


hoe sumitur, ut, accipientes virtutem  deest. } 
ceelestis cibi, in Carnem Ipsius, qui 


Cr Ask: 


CAP: 
VI. 


Responsio 
ad Patrum 
testimonia 
in specie. 


106 ΡῈ SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


Corporis Christi,—sint prorsus ἀσύστατα. Nam res, que 
desiit esse, alterius rei symbolum ac figura esse nequit; nec 
res ulla sui ipsius typus aut signum esse potest. : 

X. At si verba nimis rigide urgeantur absque intellectu 
sacramentali, nihil aliud ex iis colligi potest, quam panem et 
vinum proprie et realiter Ipsum Christi Corpus et Sanguinem 
esse; quod ne ipsi quidem transubstantiatores admittunt. 
Intreducitur igitur in hic mutatione non substantiz, sed 
ustis tantum, novitas; quam sane merito mirificam, super- 
naturalem, et omnipotentiz Divine propriam, nobiscum ag- 
novit et admirata est pia antiquitas: nam sine potentia et 
virtute Dei singulari fieri non potest, ut terrestris et corrup- 
tibilis ille cibus esca spiritualis ac celestis, per κοινωνίαν 
Corporis Christi, nobis esse incipiat. Cumque a philosophia 
et ratione humana prorsus remotum sit, Christum Carnis Suze 
de ccelo (ubi, et non alibi, localiter est) virtutem in nos dif- 
fundere, ita ut cum I]lo in unum Corpus transeamus,—recte 
et merito monent patres, quod simpliciter nos Filio Dei di- 
centi, ‘ Hoc est Corpus Meum,” credere debeamus, quodque 
nature hic ordo minime querendus sit, neque humanis cogi- 
tationibus sacrosanctum illud mysterium estimandum. Fides 
enim cum simplicitate conjuncta, per quam fit ut verba Do- 
mini sollicitare vereamur, magis Deo accepta est, quam vel ea 
in peregrinum et improprium sensum violenter detorquere, 
vel ad determinandum ea, que tam angelorum quam homi- 
num captum superant, sine necessitate et fundamento, per 
temeritatem et ambitiosam hominum curiositatem, prolabi. 
Atque hee generatim ad loca patrum, que a transubstantia- 
toribus adduci solent, respondisse nunc sufficiat. 

Qui" ampliorem istarum e patribus objectionum refutatio- 
nem in hac re videre desiderat, legat (si lubet) Hospin. in 
Hist. Sacram.i, et Marcum Antonium de Dominis, superius 
laudatum/, in cap. vi. lib. v. de Rep. Eccles., atque in 
Ostensione Errorum Suarezii, cap. 11." 

XI. Locus S. Ignatii, qui a Theodoreto citatur, et a pontifi- 
ciis quibusdam objicitur, ex epistoli ad Smyrnenses, (ubi ta- 


* [Hee que sequuntur verbadesunt 441.] 


manuscriptis. ] J A sect. i. usque ad xiii. [Vid. supr., 
* Lib. ii, et iv. [Vid. Radolphi cap. ii. § vii. pp. 283—30.] 
Hospiniani Hist. Sacram. par. i., ed. [Ubi supr., p. 30.] 


Tiguri, 1598; pp. 21—183; et 283— 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIE, 107 


men hodie non legitur,) quod! Simoniani et Menandriani he- 
retici “ Kucharistias et Oblationes non admiserint, eo quod 
negarint Eucharistiam esse Carnem Salvatoris nostri Jesu 
Christi,’—nihil quidem pro transubstantiatione facit, sicut 
fatetur ipse Cardinalis Bellarminus. “Non,” enim, (inquit™,) 
“tam sacramentum Eucharistiz, quam mysterium Incarna- 
tionis oppugnabant heretici illi Menandriani ; qui “ idcirco (ut 
Ignatius ibidem indicat) negabant Eucharistiam esse Carnem 
Domini ;” (hoc est, interpretante Theodoreto", ‘‘divina” panis 
et vini “ mysteria esse Corporis Christi revera existentis sym- 
bola;”) “quia negabant Dominum habere Carnem.” Ne 
igitur veritatem Carnis Christi propter symbola Eucharistica 
fateri cogerentur, ipsam quoque Eucharistiam, et symbola 
veri Corporis, omnino repudiirunt. Dato enim symbolo Cor- 
poris, datur quoque Corpus verum; quum veritas et symbo- 
lum sint correlata: phantasma vero symbolum aut signum 
non recipit. 

XII. Verba Justini Martyris, pro transubstantiatione allata, 
eandem prorsus evertunt. Nam, “ Quemadmodum” (inquit’) 
*‘ per verbum Dei Salvator noster incarnatus est, ita per preces 
verbi Deifacta est Hucharistia, qué carnes nostre aluntur, Caro 
et Sanguis Christi.” Sed, quando Christus incarnatus est, 
nemo Eum absque heresi transubstantiatum esse dixerit. 

XIII. Que ex Cypriano? afferuntur, de pane “non effigie 
sed naturi” immutato, Cypriani non sunt, nec contra pro- 
testantes militant. Nam‘ vocem “natura” non stricte ac- 


! Theodoret. Dial. iii., ex Ep. 5. Ig- 
natii. [ Vid. Epist. v.—Theodoreti op., 
.ed. Lut. Par. 1642, tom. iv. Ρ. 154.— 
εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσφορὰς οὐκ ἀποδέ- 
χονται, διὰ τὸ μὴ- “ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὖχα- 
ριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ ᾿Ξωτῆρος ἡμῶν 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν 
ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν χρηστότητι ὁ Πατὴρ 
ἤγειρεν. 

™ Bellarm., de Euch., ]. i. ὁ. i. § 3. 
[Op., ed. Ingolst. 1601, tom. iii. col. 
4:50. ] 

a Dial. 11, [Theodoreti op., tom. iv. p. 
84.----Ορθ. εἰ τοίνυν Tod ὄντος Σώματος 
ἀντίτυπά ἐστι τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια, Σῶμα ἄρα 
ἐστὶ καὶ νῦν τοῦ Δεσπότου τὸ Σῶμα, οὐκ 
εἰς θεότητος φύσιν μεταβληθὲν, ἀλλὰ 
θείας δόξης ἀναπλησθέν.] 

° Apol.ii. ad Ant. Imp. [Vid. Apol. 
> § 66.—Justini Mart. op., ed. Ben. 


Par. 1742, p. 83.—6v τρόπον διὰ λόγου 
Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς 6 
Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ 
σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι 
εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστη- 
θεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ fs αἷμα καὶ σάρκες 
κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκεί- 
νου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ 
σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι. |} 

P Serm. de Coend Dom. [S. Cypr. 
op., ed. Oxon. 1682, Append. ii. p. 40. ] 

4 [In MSS. Dunelm. et Cestrens. 
hee sententia sic legitur: ‘ Neque 
enim negamus ‘mutatum natura pa- 
nem, non effigie:’ sed glossam tamen 
pontificiam, ‘naturam, id est, substan- 
tiam,’ et ‘ effigiem, id est, accidentia,’ 
nequaquam admittimus. Accedente 
quidem verbi omnipotentia, natura pa- 
nis ita mutatur,” &c. | 


CAP. 
Vis 


ΟΥ̓ΑῚ: 
Vii: 





Ἐ Sensu 
jam sz- 
pius dicto. 


108 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUAL] MANDUCATIONE 


cepit ille, quisquis fuit, aut contrarius est Theodoreto, Gelasio, 
&c., supra citatis; qui mutari naturam panis hoc sensu diserte 
negant, sed late, quomodo natura usui seu conditioni attribui- 
tur. Nam “ verbi omnipotentia” natura panis ita mutatur, ut, 
quod ante nudum erat elementum, Divinum jam fiat sacra- 
mentum, sed absque omni transubstantiatione. Quod do- 
cetur vel verbis sequentibus, que pars sunt hujus periodi, 
“de humana et Divini natura Christi; ubi, nisi Eutyches 
sequendus sit, humanitas in Divinitatem non transubstan- 
tiatur. 

XIV. Cyrilli verba aiunt pontificii’ esse tam perspicua, 
ut nullam solutionem admittant. Nam, “Qui aquam” (in- 
quit’) “ aliquando mutavit in vinum, nunguid non erit dignus 
cui credamus, quod vinum transmutavit in Sanguinem?... 
Quare omni cum certitudine Corpus et Sanguinem Christi 
sumamus: nam sub specie panis datur tibi Corpus, et sub 
specie vini datur Sanguis.” Sane mutari vinum in Christi 
Sanguinem’ libenter concedunt protestantes, et firmiter (ut 
seepe dictum) credunt: sed omnis mutatio non est transub- 
stantiatio; neque hanc mutationem talem dixit Cyrillus, qua- 
lis illa aquee fuit. ΤΌΠΟ enim non minus quam illain sensus 
incurreret. At, qui aquam potuit sensibiliter mutare, quin 
vinum quoque possit sacramentaliter convertere, nulli est 
dubitandum. Per speciem vero panis et vini substantiam 
non excludit, sed ipsum panem et vinum intelligit. Verba 
enim sequentia,—~ Ne consideres tanquam nudam panem 
et nudum vinum,”—perinde valent ac si dixisset: ‘ Panis 
quidem est, non tamen nudus panis, sed preterea etiam ali- 
quid aliud.? Sed, quod‘ nihil pro pontificiorum transub- 
stantiatione faciat conversio illa aque in vinum, a Christo 
Domino facta, sic manifestum fieri poterit. Quin omnipo- 
tentia Dei substantia una in aliam possit commutari, nemo 


τ Card. Bellarm., 1. ii. de Euch,, ec. 
13. [§ Secundo.—Op., ed. Ingolst. 
1601, tom. 111. col. 592.—Hee sunt 
tam perspicua, ut omnino nesciam, 
quid fingi possit ad eorum perversio- 
nem. | 

3 Cyril. Hierosol., Catech. [xxii.] 
mystag. iv. [de Corp. et Sang. Dom., 
δὲ 2, 3, 6.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1720, pp. 
820, 521. --τὸ ὕδωρ ποτὲ εἰς οἶνον μετα- 
βέβληκεν, καὶ οὐκ ἀξιόπιστός 


ers. ἰσ τὰ Ὁ 


ἐστιν οἶνον μεταβαλὼν εἰς αἷμα; . . .. 
μετὰ πάσης πληροφορίας, ὡς Ξώματος 
καὶ Αἵματος μεταλαμβάνωμεν Χριστοῦ" 
ἐν τύπῳ γὰρ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι τὸ Σῶμα, 
καὶ ἐν τύπῳ οἴνου δίδοταί σοι τὸ Αἵμα. 
μὴ πρόσεχε οὖν ὡς 
ψιλοῖς τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ τῷ οἴνῳ.) 

' [Verba que infra sunt, usque ad 
hujus capituli finem, in MSS. non le- 
guntur. | 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 109 


negaverit ; idque factum videmus a Christo in oppido Cana 
Galilee, cum aquam in vinum verterit. Atqui ea vera et 
proprie dicta transubstantiatio fuit. Sed in sacramento 
Eucharistiz alia plane conversio fieri a pontificiis affirmatur, 
quée nec capi quidem potest, si quis rem attente consideret. 
Non enim substantia panis in substantiam aliam, que non 
existat, sed in substantiam Corporis Christi, qui existit, et 
ab Incarnationis tempore per plura secula extitit, converti 
dicitur. Vinum vero illud numericum, quod ex aque sub- 
stantid fecit Christus, ante eam transubstantiationem non 
existebat. Jam facile quivis intelligit Eum, qui omnia cre- 
avit ex nihilo, potuisse ex aqué aut alid quaicunque sub- 
stantia vinum novum facere. Sed Christi Corpus, aut aliam 
quamcunque substantiam, que jam existat et habeat esse 
completum, ex alii substantid denuo fieri, cum jam sit sub- 
stantia completa, absurditatem omnem superat. Quod qui- 
dem viderunt illi, qui adductionem Corporis Christi in locum 
panis excogitarunt. Id autem tantumdem est, ac si transub- 
stantiationem negarent; nisi, quoties aliquis in locum absen- 
tis succedit, in eum transubstantietur: quod nemo sanus 
dixerit. 

XV. S. Ambrosius etiam “naturam mutari’ dicit"; et 
quidem mutatur. Est enim alia elementi, alia sacramenti 
natura; neque protestantes “elementum” “ benedictione mu- 
tari’ contradicunt, adeo ut panis jam consecratus “non” 
sit panis quem “natura formavit, sed” quem “ benedictio 
consecravit,” et consecrando etiam “immutavit.”’? Interim, 
Ambrosio non aliter ibi Christi vel benedictio vel sermo 
operatur, quam “‘ut sit quod erat, et in aliud commutetur :” 
non igitur per transubstantiationem, sed per mutationem 
sacramentalem, panis fit Caro Christi. Addit: ‘ Sacramen- 
tum istud, quod accipis, Christi sermone conficitur. Quod 
si tantum valuit sermo Eliz, ut ignem de ccelo depromeret', 
non yalebit Christi sermo, ut species mutet elementorum ? 
De totius mundi operibus legisti, quia ‘Ipse dixit, et facta 
sunt.’ .. . Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere 
quod non erat, non potest ea, que sunt, in id mutare quod 


= S. Ambros., 1. iv. de Sacr., cap. 4. init. ce. ix. [ὃ 52, tom. 11. col. 339.— 
[8 14—16.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1690, Conf. ὃ 50. supr. citat. cap. vy. num. 
tom. ii. col. 368, 369.]—Et de Myst. xvii. ] 


CEE 
VE 


1 [“ depo- 
neret.”’ | 


110 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


CAP; non erant?’—‘ Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura: post- 


VE 


uam consecratus es, nova creatura esse ccepisti.’’—~* Nec 
q ᾿ 


minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare, naturas.” Qui-- 
bus verbis sententiam suam apertissime explicat,—ut, hac 
mutationis ratione, elementa panis et vini non desinant esse 
per essentiam quod sunt, et tamen per consecrationem fiant 
quod ante non fuerunt. Sed ubi ex Ambrosio, aut aliis pa- 
tribus, didicerunt transubstantiatores sacramentum conficere 
idem esse, quod, sublaté panis substantia, in locum vel sub 
accidentibus Ipsius naturale Christi Corpus substituere ? 
Aiunt’, “imeptam fore comparationem inter mutatas rerum 
species a Christo et propheta, si nihil aliud in Eucharistia 
consequatur quam mutatio sacramentalis ;”’ quasi sacramen- 


talis mutatio res esset nihili. 


“Nam que” (inquit Card. 


1[“Omni- Bellarm.’) “requiritur potentia! ad faciendum nihil?” At 


potentia.”’ ] 


protestantes respondent, tantam sacramentorum amplitudi- 


nem, majestatem, prestantiam, atque dignitatem esse, ut, 
quam omnipotentiam Dei in rebus ex nihilo producendis, 
vel naturis rerum ministerio prophetarum immutandis, ad- 
miramur, eandem et non minorem in rebus creatis ad tantum 
munus sanctificandis reputemus. Neque enim ab humano ar- 
bitrio dependet, sed Divina virtus requiritur, ut res terrene et 
exiles fiant nobis certissima Corporis et Sanguinis Christi 
pignora. Quod si precise Ambrosii verba urgeamus, “ ser- 
mone Christi species elementorum mutari,”’ sicut Cardinalis 
et alii transubstantiatores hic faciunt, sane non solum sub- 
stantiam panis et vini, sed et ipsas species (quee illis dicuntur 
accidentia) elementorum in Corpus et Sanguinem Christi 
permutari fatendum erit. Cum igitur ab Ambrosio, atque 
adeo ab omni antiquitate, sine ullo discrimine, tam species 
panis et vini quam ipse panis et vinum transmutari dicantur, 
quis tandem non intelligat eo ipso transubstantiationis fig- 
mentum (quo rerum substantia ita aboleri dicitur, ut solis 
earum speciebus vel accidentibus sine omni subjecto in Eu- 


y Bellarm., loco citato. [ Vid. lib. ii. 
de Euch., cap. 14. Test. S. Ambr.— 
Op., ed. Ingolst. 1601, tom. iii. col. 
594, 595.—Probat multis miraculorum 
exemplis Christi verba esse operatoria, 
et ejusmodi ut naturas veré mutare 
possint : que omnia sine causa addu- 


cuntur, si nulla realis mutatio sit in 
pane, Rucharistie. —) 0 προρ- 
Ao) att τς Quam inepte ista 
omnia dicerentur, si nulla fieret realis 
mutatio ! ] 

* Lib. ii. de Euch., ο, 9. [8 Tertio.— 
Ubi supr. col. 577. ] 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 11: 


charistid locus relinquatur,) validissime expugnari atque ΟΑ P. 
everti? ΜΙ 
XVI. Reliqua patrum testimonia, si “de pane fieri Corpus Patres re- 
Christi” dicant, lubenter protestantes admittunt. Fieri enim /?* 
de elemento sacramentum, nec consistere sacramentum sine 
re sacramenti, firmiter tenent. Nam productive fieri Chris- 
tum de pane, ne Cardinalis quidem affirmabit. “ Hoc,” 
igitur illud “est, quod” cum Augustino? “ dicimus, quodque 
modis omnibus approbare contendimus,”’—“ sacrificium” 
Eucharistiz “ duobus confici, ... visibili elementorum specie, 
et invisibili Christi Carne ac Sanguine,” “ sicut Christi per- 
sona constat ... ex Deo et homine, cum Ipse.. verus sit 
Deus et verus homo.” Quia omnis res illarum rerum natu- 
ram et veritatem in se continet, ex quibus conficitur. ‘‘ Con- 
ficitur’” autem sacramentum ex duobus,—“ sacramento, et 
re sacramenti, id est, Corpore Christi.” 
XVII. Eant nunc transubstantiatores cum “ triginta duo- 
bus suis probatissimis” (uti immerito gloriantur>) “testibus,” 
qui ante Innocentii tertii pape tempus floruerunt. Tantum 
enim abest verissimum esse, vel quod Innocentius¢ decrevit, 
vel quod Concilium Tridentinum¢ sub anathemate definivit,— 
* Heclesize Catholicee semper fuisse persuasum, ita transmu- 
tari panem in Corpus Domini, ut, substantid panis recedente, 
sola maneret Christi Caro sub accidentibus panis,”—ut istud 
transubstantiationis dogma, non modo quoad nomen, sed 
quoad rem ipsam quoque, vetustatis patrocinio prorsus desti- 
tuatur. Dixit Alphonsus ἃ Castro®, “in antiquis scriptoribus 


« De Consecr., dist. ii. c. Hoc est. Altaris sub speciebus panis et vini ve- 


-[eap. xlviii,, August. in libr. Sentent. 
Prosp.—Corp. Jur. Can., ed, Par. 1612, 
tom. 1. col. 2108.—Conf. supr. cap. v. 
num, xx.; et cap. vi. num. v. | 

Ὁ Card. Bellarm. de Euch., lib. iii. 
cap. 20, v.:3. [tom. 111. col. 742.— 
Habemus triginta duos probatissimos 
testes, quorum postremi quinque tem- 
pore S. Bernadi, omnes autem ante 
Innocentium III. floruerunt. | 

e Extra, de Trin. et Fide Cathol., ο. 
1. [ Vid. Gregorii IX. Decretal., lib. i. 
tit. i, cap. Firmiter credimus; ap. 
Corp. Jur. Can., ed. Par. 1612, tom. 
ii. col, 9, 10.—Una vero est universa 
Ecclesia: ....in qua Idem Ipse Sa- 
cerdos est Sacrificium, Jesus Christus ; 
Cujus Corpus et Sanguis in sacramento 


raciter continentur, transubstantiatis 
pane in Corpus et vino in Sanguine 
potestate divina, &c. | 

4 Sess. xiii. c. 4. [ Labbe, tom. xiv. 
p- 806.—Persuasum semper in Eccle- 
sia Dei fuit, idque nune denud sancta 
hee synodus declarat, per consecra- 
tionem panis et vini, conversionem 
fieri totius substantiz panis in sub- 
stantiam Corporis Christi Domini nos- 
tri, et totius substantia vini in sub- 
stantiam Sanguinis Ejus; que con- 
versio convenienter et proprie a sancta 
Catholica Ecclesia transubstantiatio 
est appellata. ] 

¢ Lib. viii. contra Hereses, [ὃ de] 
Indulg. [ Alphonsi op., ed. Par. 1571, 
col. 578,—Multa sunt posterioribus 





CARES 


Vi. 


112 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


raram esse de transubstantiatione mentionem :’—rectius 
dixisset, nullam. Sic enim ipsi Jesuit nostri in Anglid fate- 


bantur. 
patres ne attigerunt quidem :’ 


“Rem” (inquiunt‘) “ transubstantiationis antiqui 


quod sane verissimum est &. 


Id, quod latius declarandum est capite sequenti. 


CAPUT VII. 


DE SCRIPTORIBUS SECULI UNDECIMI ET SEQUENTIS, E QUIBUS CLARISSIME 


DEDUCITUR HISTORIA TRANSUBSTANTIATIONIS PAPALIS. 
11. INFELIX SECULUM, QUO SCINDEBAN- 


TEMPORUM QUALES FUERUNT. 


TUR THEOLOGI CIRCA REM EUCHARISTICAM. 


I. Para& IstoRUM 


III. FULBERTI SENTENTIA. 


IV. QUAM SEQUITUR EJUS DISCIPULUS BERENGARIUS, CUI ALII CONTRA- 
picunT. V., VI. BERENGARII DOCTRINA DEFENSA. VII. LEONIS NONI 
RUGITUS CONTRA BERENGARIUM. VIII. Victoris 11. syYNODUS TURO- 
NENSIS, QUA BERENGARIUM TANQUAM RECTE SENTIENTEM DIMISIT. 
IX. NicoLavs Il. PAPA NOVAM INDICIT SYNODUM CONTRA BERENGARIUM, 
CUI INIQUA ATQUE STUPENDA RECANTATIO INJUNCTA EST. X. GLOSSm 
ORDINARIM CENSURA DE ISTA BERENGARIO PRM#SCRIPTA RECANTATIONE. 
XI. QUAM, PER VIM ET METU MORTIS, SIBI EXTORTAM FUISSE DIXIT. 
LANFRANCUS ET GUITMUNDUS CONTRA EUM SCRIBUNT. XII. HiLpz- 
BRANDUS PAPA, ET EJUS CONCILIUM ROMANUM: AD QUOD BERENGARIUS 
ITERUM VOCATUS EST, ET FRUSTRA CONDEMNATUS. XIII. 8S. Bernarpt 
DOCTRINA APPROBATA. XIV. RUPERTI SENTENTIA. XV. P. LomBarpus 


- DE TRANSUBSTANTIATO PANE NIHIL DEFINIRE POTUIT, ET DE ACCIDEN- 


nota, que vetusti illi scriptores pror- 
sus ignoraverunt. Nam de transub- 
Stantiatione panis in Corpus Christi 
rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio: 
de processione Spiritis Sancti a Filio 
multo rarior: de purgatorio fere nulla, 
potissimum apud Grecos scriptores, | 
f Discurs. Modest. de Jesuit. p. 13, 
[ Vid. “A sparing Discoverie ofour Eng- 
lish Jesuits,’”’ 4το. Frane. 1601, p. 13.— 
Conf. L. Andr., Respons. ad Apolog. 
Card. Bellarm., cap. i., ed. Lond. 1610, 
p. 7.—Conclusum autem inter patres So- 
cietatis, (compares ejus [ Bellarm.] nu- 
per,) quibus quis non credat? preesertim 
cum in ipso tum carcere essent (ad 
minimum) confessores: Nimirum (ver- 
ba ipsa refero) ‘‘ rem transubstantiati- 
onis patres ne attigisse quidem ;᾽᾿ &c.— 
Vid. etiam Jerem. Taylor, ‘ Of the Real 
Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacra- 
ment,’ ὃ xiii. art. 3; ap. Σύμβολον Oco- 
λογικόν, ed. Lond. 1674, p. 269.]— 
Et Wats. Quodl., lib. 11. art.4. [Vid. 


‘A Decacordon of Ten Quodlibetical 
Questions, concerning Religion and 
State,’ &c.—by William Watson ; ed. 
4to. s. 1. 1602, p. 31.—Another like 
heretical and most dangerous assertion 
of theirs (i. e. the Jesuits) is, that the 
ancient Fathers “rem transubstantia- 
tionis ne attigerunt.”’ | 

& [In codicibus manuscriptis sub 
finem hujus capituli hee leguntur 
verba: “ Nam nemo est veterum, ante 
Paschasii Radberti tempora, qui sacrze 
Coenz symbola non fateatur disertis 
verbis panem et vinum esse, etsi (ut 
dictum est) variis epistolis illa inter- 
dum insigniant ad commendandam 
tanti mysterii dignitatem. Quamvis 
autem tempore Paschasii contra vete- 
rum doctrinam in hae re disputatum 
fuit, decretum tamen nihil ante papa- 
tum Innocentii tertii; nec sub anathe- 
mate definitum quidquam ante conci- 
lium Tridentinum.—Id, quod latius, 
&e. | 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 113 


TIBUS PANIS SINE SUBJECTO MISERABILITER PHILOSOPHATUR. XVI. τη CAP. 
FRISINGENSIS, ET EJUS COMTANEI, PANEM ET VINUM IN BUCHARISTIA vera __ VU. 
MANERE FATENTUR. XVII. P. BLESENSIS ET STEPH. EDUENSIS NOTANTUR, 
QUI PRIMI OMNIUM TRANSUBSTANTIATIONIS VOCABULUM USURPARUNT. 
XVIII. SecuLuM xiil., IN QUO INNOCENTIUS III. PAPA DECRETUM SUUM 
DE TRANSUBSTANTIATIS PANE ET VINO IN CORPUS ET SANGUINEM DOMINI 
PUBLICAVIT. XIX. ET XX. INNOCENTIT II. MIRA ARROGANTIA. SyY- 
NODUS LATERANENSIS DE HOC ARTICULO NIHIL DECREVIT. XXI, Esus- 
DEM INNOCENTII CRUDELITAS, QUI PER CARNIFICINAS, ET VIVICOMBURIA, 
NOVAM FIDEI SUH DOCTRINAM STABILIRE VOLUIT. XXII. GERsONIS 
DICTUM DE ROMANA ILLIUS TEMPORIS ECCLESIA. MULTA FIGMENTA E 
TRANSUBSTANTIATIONE ORTA.  QUESTIONES PORTENTOSH ET INEX- 
TRICABILES. XXIII. MonacHoRUM NOVI ORDINES, ET SCHOLASTICI. 
XXIV. EorUM ALTERCATIONES ET DISPUTATIONES ABOMINANDE. XXV. 
SACRAMENTUM INDIGNISSIME TRACTATUM AB EIS, QUI ILLUD IN PRO- 
PRIUM CORPUS CHRISTI TRANSUBSTANTIATUM CREDIDERUNT. XXVI. ET 
XXVII. HoLkot, AQuiNnas, ALBERTUS MAGNUS, ET ALII SCHOLASTICI, 
QUAMVIS PRO TRANSUBSTANTIATORIBUS ALIQUANDO NON FACIANT, OMNIA 
TAMEN AD PAP#® ROMANI JUDICIUM REFERUNT. XXVIII. Synopus con- 
STANTIENSIS, QUZ POCULUM LAICIS ABSTULIT. XXIX. Carp. CAMERA- 
CENSIS TRANSUBSTANTIATIONEM EX 5. LITERIS PROBARI POSSE NEGAT. 
XXX. SYNODUS FLORENTINA, ET EUGENII IV. INSTRUCTIO ARMENORUM, 
NOTANTUR. XXXI. ANATHEMA PAPALE IN SYNODO TRIDENTINA NULLI 
FORMIDANDUM. CONCLUSIO OPERIS. 


I. Suprrrus demonstravimus, usque ad annum millesi- 
mum, gangrenam transubstantiationis Ecclesias Christi non- 
dum depavisse. Evolutis demum mille annis, cum de carcere 
suo solutus esset qui gentes seduceret, et castra sanctorum 
circumiret, magno Ecclesiz et tum religionis tum pacis 
Christianze malo, contra clarum, perpetuum, et universalem 
hunc patrum consensum, palam hinc inde disputare coeperunt, 
‘et novam? sententiam defendere. Notum est historiarum non ![‘‘novam 
ignaris, qualia fuerint ila tempora, qualesque tum Romanam 22°24" 
Ecclesiam rexerint episcopi,—Silvester II., Johannes XIX., Seg Pm 
et XX., Sergius IV., Benedictus VIII., Johannes XXI., Bene- ἘΣ Ια Ἶ 
dictus IX., Silvester III., Gregorius VI., Damasus 11., Leo IX., 
Nicolaus II., Gregorius VII., sive Hildebrandus; qui gravi 
schismate, feralibus bellis, et immensis cedibus, Ecclesiam 


Romanam dilaniirunt. Eo enim tum Pontificatus® devenerat, 


& Card. Baron., Annal. tom. x. ann. sima, &c..... Etenim, cum gentiles 
897. § 4,[ed. Mogunt. 1601, col. 735.— imperatores Eam persecuti sunt gladio, 
En, illa infelicissima Ecclesie Roma- tune clariores celebrioresque, utpote 
nz tempora, atque omnium luctuosis- aurea martyrii decorati, effulsere Ro- 


COSIN, Ξ I 


CAP. 


Waite 


Fulbertus 
Epise. 
Carnoten- 
sis, A.D. 
1010. 


Berenga- 
rius Ar- 
chid. An- 
degay. 
1030. 


114 Dkr SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


ut, qui plus ambitione et largitione, non sanctitate vite et 
doctrina valeret, is tantummodo illius dignitatis gradum, 
bonis omnibus oppressis et rejectis, obtineret. 

11. Isto infelici seeculo scindebantur inter se viri docti 
circa presentiam Corporis Christi in Eucharistia, aliis veteris 
Ecclesize doctrinam, aliis sententiam nuper admodum ex- 
ortam defendentibus. 

III. Fulbertus Carnotensis episcopus fuit preeceptor Be- 
rengarii proxime nominandi. Quam consona fuerit doctrine 
veteris Ecclesiz sanctissimi hujus episcopi sententia, liquido 
constat ex illus epistola ad Adeodatum; in qué imter alia 
docet *, “ mysterium” fidei “non visu corporeo, sed spiritw’” 
mentis, in Eucharistid “‘imtuendum.” ... Quod enim “sub- 
stantia panis et vini apparet exterius, jam Corpus et Sanguis 
Christi fit interius ;” . . “non quod ore discernitur, sed quod 
affectu interiore degustatur. Exere,” igitur, (inquit,) “ pala- 
tum fidei, dilata fauces spei, viscera caritatis extende, et sume 
panem vite, interioris hominis alimentum.” Iterum: “De 
fide interioris hominis procedit divim gustus saporis; dum 
certe per salutaris Eucharistiz infusionem influit Christus in 
viscera anime sumentis.” Que omnia clarissime dicta sunt 
contra eos, qui Christum in hoc mysterio corporaliter in os et 
ventrem hominum intrare nimis crasse docuerunt. 

“IV. Preeceptorem secutus est discipulus Berengarius, Ee- 
clesie Andegavensis in Gallia archidiaconus; quem virum 
sanctimonia vite et doctrini prestantem fuisse testantur 
Platina, Vincentius Bergomensis, et alu quamplurimi. — Illus- 
tre vero ejus encomium, ab Hildeberto Cenomanensi epis- 
copo (viro itidem doctissimo) i114 state conscriptum, in lite- 
ras sic retulit Gulielmus noster Malmesburiensis' : 

&ec..... Hocipso infelicissimum, quod 


Ecclesia sub Cesaribus esset captiva, 
sine ullo bono feré pontifice, sine ullo 


mani pontifices; &c. ... Cum vero 
hos Romana Ecclesia passa est tyran- 
nos Tusciz principes, dominantes sive 


pecuniis sive armis populo cleroque 
Romano, per quosintrusiin cathedram 
Petri, solium Christi, sunt homines 
monstruosi, vita turpissimi, moribus 
perditissimi, usque- quaque foedissimi, 
vestimentis exuta gloriz atque letitiz, 
meoerens, dolens, et lugens, sedit in 
tristitia domina gentium. |—Gilb. Ge- 
nebr., Chron. sub initium seculi x. 
[44 ann. 901; ed. Lugd. 1599, pag. 
552.—Infelix dicitur hoc szculum, 


celebri cone., &c. | 

h Kpist. ad Adeodatum, inter alia 
ejus opera impressa Parisiis, A.D. 
1608. [8vo., fol. 8, 9.—Vid. Fulberti 
Epist. i.; ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. 
Xviil. pag. 5. | 

i Gul. Malmesb. de gestis Regum 
Anglorum, lib. iii. [de Willielmo pri- 
mo. —Vid. Rerum Anglicarum Scrip- 
tores post Bedam, &c.;—ed. Francof. 
1601, pp. 113, 114.] 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO ΕΥΟΗΑΒΙΞΤΙΕ. 115 


“Quem modo miratur, semper mirabitur orbis, 
Iile Berengarius non obiturus obit ; 

Quem, sacre fidei fastigia summa tenentem, 
(Hunc) jam* quinta dies abstulit, ausa nefas. 

Illa dies, damnosa dies et perfida mundo, 
Qua dolor et rerum summa ruina fuit ; 

Qua status Ecclesiw, qua spes, qua gloria cleri, 
Qua cultor juris, jure ruente, ruit. 


Vir sacer et sapiens, cui nomen crescit in horas, 
Quo minor est quisquis maximus est hominum. 


. . . . . . . . . . 


Vir sacer a puero, qui quanto preeminet orbi 
Fama, tanto' fame preeminet ipse sue. 

Fama minor meritis, quum totum pervolet orbem : 
Cum semper crescat, non erit equa tamen. 


Vir vere sapiens, et parte beatus ab omni, 
Qui ceelos anima, corpore ditat humum. 

Post obitum secum vivam, precor, ac requiescam, 
Nec fiat melior sors mea sorte sua.” 


Fuit autem Berengarius non solum Andegavensis archidia- 
conus™, sed ejusdem Ecclesiz scholasticus ; “quem™ honorem 
quisquis habet, academiz cancellarius est.”—“ Scholastici,” 
enim, “munus erat in maximis Ecclesiis clerum docere,”’ et 
sana doctrina instruere. Que omnia eo copiosius adscribere 
volui, ut inde manifestum cuivis esset, quantis eum injuriis pu- 
tidisque calumniis onerdrunt scriptores nuperi, quales erant 


Johannes Garetius Lovaniensis®, 


* [ Hune’’ non est ap. Gul. Malm. 
—“ Tandem quinta,” &c.; ap. Foxe’s 
‘Acts and Monuments,’ ed. Lond. 
1684, p. 385.] 

1 (Pro ‘tanto,’ ap. MS. Cestrens. 
legitur “tamen;’ ap. Gul. Malms. 
“tam;’’ ap. Foxe’s ‘Acts and Monu- 
ments,’ ‘‘ adeo.’’ } 

m A. Thevet, in Vit. Illustr. Vir. 1. 
jii. c. 62. [Vid. ‘Vies des hommes 
illustres,’ de Andre Thevet; ed. pm 
1584, f. 128.—Berangier,...... 
surnommé Je Grammairien pour son 
excellent scavoir, eslevé en la dignité 
de grand Archidiacre et Thresorier en 
l’Eglise de sainct Maurice cathedrale 


et Gulielmus Alanus An- 


du pays et Duché d’ Anjou, et Maistre 
d’Eschole et Chambrier de _ sainct 
Martin a Tours, au lieu qu’il devoit 
enseigner Je peuple a bien vivre, rendu 
plus superbe, &c. } 

n Pap. Masson., Annal. France. lib. 
iii. [ed. 4to. Lut. 1577, pag. 233. ] 

© Garet.de Vera Present., in Epist. 
Nuncup. [pag. 4. ed. 8vo. Antv. 1561. 
Tandem jam emersit, cirea annum 
Domini 1040, Turonensis quidam Be- 
rengarius,... . homo nullius erudi- 
tionis, gloria tamen avidus, et magni 
supercilii ; qui, zgre ferens se nullius 
esse existimationis, et alios ob erudi- 
tionem sibi preferri, scelere, quia vir- 


- 12 


CA Ps 


Vile 


CAP. 


Wile 





116 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


glus?, et alii; qui virum celeberrimum non tantum erroris et 
hzeresews insimulant, sed etiam velut “hominem indoctum, 
et nullius eruditionis,” traducunt. 

V. Berengarius vero eam, quam ante annos CLXX. ex 
Scripturis sanctisque patribus, in eodem Galliz regno, Ber- 
tramus, Johannes Erigena, aliique aliis in locis, tradiderant, 
sententiam acriter propugnavit contra illos, qui? nec panem 
nec vinum post consecrationem amplius in Eucharistia superesse 
docebant : nequaquam autem vel sensit, vel docuit, (quod multi 
tamen, contra manifestam veritatem, ei affingere non veren- 
tur,) nihil aliud in Coené Domini a fidelibus percipi, quam 
nuda symbola, sive panem duntaxat et vinum; sed credidit 
et aperte docuit, (quemadmodum 8. Augustinus aliique fide- 
lissimi Ecclesiarum doctores ex infallibili Dei verbo tradide- 
rant,) credentium animas vero Corpore et Sanguine Domini 
in hoc mysterio refici ad vitam eternam. Interim, aut sub- 
stantiam panis et vini aboleri, aut im verum et naturale Cor- 
pus Christi substantialiter transmutari, aut ipsum e celo 
Christum carnaliter descendere, (id, quod alu eo tempore 
docere, et Ecclesus obtrudere, primo incipiebant,) nec sentire 
nec docere voluit. Libri integri, quos m hac causa scripsit, 
ab hostibus ejus suppressi et exterminati, hodie non haben- 
tur. Que tamen, apud infensissimum illius adversarium 
Lanfrancum, ejus verba supersunt, hic subjicio': “ Per con- 
secrationem Altaris, panis et vinum fiunt sacramentum re- 
ligionis; non ut desinant esse quie erant, sed* ut im aliud 
mutentur et fiant que non erant:’—plane ad mentem S. 
Ambrosi. Iterum: “Sacrificium Ecclesiz duobus constat,’ 
(ad mentem hoc S. Irenzi,)—“ visibil” ‘ sacramento,” “et 


tute nequibat, nomen sibi et famam 
comparare decrevit ; idque non callide 
minus, quam impie: collectis enim 
nonnullis frigidis ratiunculis, ὅτο. ] —Et 
Class. v. A.D. 1040. [ibid. p. 193.— 
Leo IX. papa concilium illud (Rom.) 
hane ob causam coegit. Erat in Gal- 
liis quidam Berengarius Turonensis, 
.... homo indoctus, sed gloriz admo- 
dum cupidus. Hic itaque clarus fieri 
aliquo facinore cupiens, &c.—Vid. 
etiam Garetii verba sub cone. Vercel- 
lens. eodem anno habit.; ubi supra. ] 

p Alan. de Euch., lib. i. c. 21. [Vid. 
Gul. Alani lib. de Sacramentis, We. ; 
ed. 4to. Anty. 1576, p. 337.—At Beren- 


garius his non permotus, sed scelere et 
superbia inflammatus, jam doctissimos 
quosque episcopos ad certamen proyo- 
cat, ὅτ. 

4 [In MS. Dunelm. verba ‘‘ Pascha- 
sium sequentes” rubrica deleta sunt. ] 

r Extant apud Lanfr. de veritate 
Corp. Domini in Euch. [Vid. cap. ix., 
Χ., lv., xil., xiiiiLanfranci op., ed. 
Lut. Par. 1648, pp. 238, 239, 234, 
240.—Vid. etiam cap. y., vi.; et pas- 
sim. ] 

8 | Verba ipsissima sunt: .. . “sed 
ut sint que erant, et in aliud commu- 
tentur, quod dicit beatus Ambrosius,”’ 
&e. } 


. CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 117 


CA P: 
ὙΠ: 


invisibili” “re sacramenti,” “id est, Corpore Christi.” Item: 
“ Panis et vinum, que consecrata sunt, in substantiis suis per- 
manent ;”... “similitudinem habentia earum rerum quarum 
sacramenta sunt: nam aliter “omnino sacramenta non es- 
sent.” Rursus: Sacramenta “ sunt visibilia rerum Divinarum 
signacula, sed res” ipse “invisibiles in eis honorantur.”— 
Planissime itidem ad mentem 8S. Augustini, aliorumque vete- 
rum patrum, quos supra citavimus. 

VI. Nequaquam igitur hac sud doctriné Christi Corpus e 
sacramento exclusit, sed sacramentum in legitimo ejus usu 
cum re sacramenti conjunxit ; et Corpus Christi, non ore et 
modo carnali, sed spiritu, mente, et anima, manducari do- 
cuit. Nec solus tum Berengarius hanc orthodoxe vetustatis 
sententiam defensitavit. Constat enim ex Sigibertot, Gul. 
Malmesburiensi", Matth. Parisio*, et Matth. Westmonaste- 
riensi’, “omnes” fere hujus temporis “ Gallos, Italos, et An- 
glos,” eidem sententiz adhzesisse, “‘multumque a multis et 
verbis et scriptis” pro ed “ disputatum esse ;” inter quos nu- 
meratur Bruno’, ipse tum episcopus ejusdem Andegavensis 
Keclesiz. Id vero egre audiunt pontificii; qui, ne horum 
scripta ad posteritatis notitiam pervenirent, sedulo dederunt 
operam; et Berengari doctrinam, a veteribus acceptam, 
multisque nobilissimis gentibus defensam, in uno aut altero 
orbis angulo latitisse scriptitant. 

VII. Romanorum autem pontificum primus, qui Berengario Concil. 





se opposuit, fuit Leo IX.', vir quidem simplex, sed Humberti Mere υτα 
et Hildebrandi consiliis aurem nimis facilem prebens. Is, Papa IX. 


: ᾿ Ι ome 1 
simul ac rogatus fuit, statim cum suis in Berengarium, ab- ,9:4"° 


sentem et imauditum’, sententiam excommunicationis pro- 





τ Sigiberti Chron. a Mirzo editum, 
[ann. 1051; ap. Auberti Mirzi‘ Rerum 
toto orbe gestarum Chron.,’ ed. Anty. 
1608, p. 154. —Francia turbatur eS 
Berengarium, ὅτ. : 

Unde contra eum, et pro 60, multum a 
Baye et verbis et scriptis disputatum 
est. 

ἃ Malmesb., in continuat. Bede. 
[Vid., lib. iii. De gestis Regum Anglo- 
rum; ap. Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores 
post ive &c. ed. Francof. 1601, p. 
113. 

x Matth. Paris. in Hist. Majori, ad 
ann. 1087; [ed. Lond. 1684, p. 10.— 
Imprimis autem afficiebatur omnis 


Gallia ejus (Berengarii) doctrina. | 

y Matth. West. ad eundem annum. 
[ Vid. Flores Historiarum per Matthe- 
um Westmonasteriensem collect., ad 
ann. 1087, § De sacramento Altaris; 
ed. Francof. 1601, pp. 230, 231.—Eo 
tempore Berengarius . omnes 
Gallos, Italos, et Anglos, suis jam 
pene corruperat pravitatibus ; &c. 7 

z Baron. ad ann. 1035, § 1, 6. [ Vid. 
Baronii Annal. Eccles., ed. Mogunt. 
1606, tom. xi. coll. 163, 165.] 

® Lanfranecus, in lib. citato. [Vid 
lib. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. cap. iv.— 
Op., ed. Lut. Par. 1648, p. 234.— 
Tempore sancti Leonis pape, delata 


CAGE: 
ΨΈΕΕ 


Anno 
1055.Con- 
ciliumTu- 
ronense 
sub Vic- 
tore Papa 
II. 


Anno 
1058.Con- 
cilium 
Romanum 
sub Nico- 
lao Papa 
Uh 


118 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


mulgavit ; et, non multo post, synodum quandam Vercellis 
coegit, in qui Johannes Erigena una cum Berengario dam- 
nati sunt?; atque eo nomine damnati, quasi panem et vinum 
in Eucharistid nuda tantum signa esse asseverarent®: quod 
tamen ab eorum sensu et fide maxime erat alienum. Iste 
igitur Leonis rugitus Berengarium non terruit. Quin οὐ 
Gallicane etiam Ecclesie pontifici Romano ac Vercellensi 
synodo passim contradicebant, et veritatem una cum Beren- 
gario oppressam palam propugnabant. 

VIII. Leoni successit Victor papa 11., qui, cum predeces- 
soris sui fulmine Berengarium opprimi non posse videret, 
misso in Gallias legato suo Hildebrando, apud Turones syno- 
dum alteram collegit, quo vocatus Berengarius libenter illico 
comparuit ; et, postquam nullam se preter communem Eccle- 
siz sententiam de Eucharistid fovere dixit, panemque et vinum 
in sacrificio Ecclesiz meras tantum umbras ac figuras vacuas 
esse negavit, idque propriz mantis subscriptione confirmavit, 
dimissus est. Non enim sententiam suam abjecit, (ut recen- 
tiores perhibent pontificu,) sed eam perinde ac prius defen- 
dit et docuit, qaemadmodum Lanfrancus de ipso narrat. 

IX. Non sic tamen conquievere ejus adversarii, quin Nico- 
laum papam II., qui in locum Victoris (interveniente paucis 
mensibus Stephano X.) absque Cesaris consensu suffectus 
erat, eo adegerunt, ut novam synodum contra Berengarium 
Rome indiceret. Cum enim modum presentiz (quem ill 


[ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. xviii. pag. 
438.—Avertat Dominus a te, sancte 


est heeresis tua ad apostolicam sedem. 
Igitur cum a quodam 


Remensi clerico ‘Romam perlatas reci- 
tator legeret, intellecto quod Joannem 
Scotum ΒΕ ΠΤ Paschasium dam- 
nares, communis de Eucharistia fidei 
adversa sentires, promulgata est in te 
damnationis sententia, privans te com- 
munione sancte Ecclesiz, &c....... 
Dehine ceclarata est synodus Vercel- 
lensis, que proximo Septembri eodem 
presidente pontifice est celebrata Ver- 
cellis: ad quam vocatus non venisti ; 
&c.. ... In qua (synodo).... Joan- 
nis Scoti liber de Eucharistia lectus 
est ac damnatus, sententia tua exposita 
ac damnata, fides sancte Ecclesie.. 
audita, et concordi omnium assensu 
confirmata. | 

 Scilicet post mortem hominis in- 
nocentissimi annos fere ducentos. 

© Adelman{n jus, in Ep. ad Bereng. 


frater, semitas tales; et convertat pedes 
tuos in testimonia sua: et mendaces os- 
tendat, qui famam tuam tam feeda labe 
maculare nituntur, spargentes usque- 
quaque, ut non solum Latinas, verum 
etiam Teutonicas aures, inter quas diu 
peregrinor, repleverint, quasi te ab 
unitate sancte matris Ecclesiz divul- 
seris, et de Corpore et Sanguine Do- 
mini, quod quotidie in universa terra 
super sanctum Altareimmolatur, aliter 
quam fides catholica teneat, sentire 
videaris: hoc est, (ut illorum de te 
dictis utar,) non esse verum Corpus 
Christi, neque verum Sanguinem, sed 
figuram quandam et similitudinem. } 

4 Quales erant Redonensis, Ande- 
gavensis, Leonensis, Dolensis, Maclo- 
viensis, &c. 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 119 


plane crassum, et Christo indignum, in Eucharistiam inve- 
here cceperunt) recipere Berengarius repudiaverit, et (ut prius) 
docuerit Christi Corpus non adesse eo modo, ut pro hominum 
libitu condi, promi, et in ventrem sumi, in terram abjici, 
pedibus conculcari, a bestiis arrodi et devorari, posset,—ilhi 
prorsus eum negavisse ullo modo adesse calumniati sunt. 
Ad imperata Romani pontificis exequenda, adfuerunt synodo 
CXIII. episcopi. Adfuit et ipse Berengarius ; “ eique, in 
dicendo copiosissimo,” (verba sunt Sigonii®, et Leonis Osti- 
ensis‘,) “cum nullus valeret obsistere,” tandem “ Albericus” 
quidam, monachus Cassinensis, “ cardinalis a Stephano” Papa 
constitutus, “ad synodum evocatus est :; et, postquam 
“septem dierum spatium ad responsum scripto edendum 
poposcerat,” chartam suam attulit adversus Berengarium : 
(sed rationes et argumenta, quibus ad convincendam ejus 
sententiam usus est, non extant :) qui protinus, absque ulte- 
riori processu’, recantare jussus est ad modum “ab Hum- 
berto Cardinali conscriptum,” qui sic se habuit™: “ Ego 
Berengarius,” &c... . “ Consentio sanctze Romane [Ecclesiz] 
et apostolic sedi, et ore ac corde profiteor, de sacramentis 
Dominic Mensz, eam fidem me tenere, quam dominus et 
venerabilis papa Nicolaus et hee S. synodus, auctoritate 
evangelici et apostolicd, tenendam tradidit, mihique firma- 
vit; scilicet, panem et vinum, que in Altari ponuntur, post 
consecrationem non solummodo sacramentum, symbolum, 
sive figuram, sed etiam verum Corpus et Sanguinem Domini 
nostri Jesu Christi, esse ;” (hactenus non male: qué vero 
sequuntur, horrida nimis sunt, et ab ipsis pontificiis impro- 
bata:) “et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, sed veritate, 
“manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus 
atteri.” Sunt enim hec prescripte recantationis verba, que, 
Berengario tradita, ct ab eo primum rejecta, tandem? per 
carcerem, minas, mortisque metum, ab illo extorta sunt’. 


dist. ii. c. 42. [Decretum, par. ili.— 


6. De regn. Ital., lib. ix. ann. 1059. 
Corp. Jur. Can. ed. Par. 1612, tom. i. 


[ Vid. Caroli Sigonii op., ed. Mediol. 


1732, tom. ii. coll. 537, 538, 539. ] 


f In Chron. Cassin., ]. iii. c, 35.,[ed. 


4to. Neapoli, 1616, pp. 380, 381. ] 
& Baron. ad ann. 1059. ὃ 18. 
§ 13. 





1606, tom. xi. col. 329. ] 
» Habetur apud Gratian. de Consecr. 


ὃ [ Vid. 
Annal. Eccles., ed. Mogunt. 


col. 2103.) 

i Pap. Masson., Annal. France. lib. 
iii. [ed. 4to. Lutet. 1577, pag. 236.— 
Ipse (Bereng.) prasens timore mortis 
libros de Eucharistia ab se editos in 
ignem projecit, ac formulam abjuratio- 
nis coram episcopis recitayit, cujus ini- 


CA Pe 


VII. 


1 Anno 
1059. 


? [** tan- 
tum.’’— 
MS. 
Cestr. ] 





CAEL: 


Alb) 


Concilium 
Roma- 
num sub 
Hilde- 
brando 
Papa, 
A.D. 
1079. 


190 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


X. Integra vero istius professionis preescripte et extorte 
formula habetur, tum apud Lanfrancum*, et Algerum’, tum 
apud Gratianum™; ad quam tamen Gratiani glossator Jo- 
hannes Semeca hee annotavit": “ Nisi sane intelligas verba 
Berengari,” (rectius dixisset verba Nicolai papz et cardi- 
nalis Humberti,) “in majorem incides hzeresin, quam ipse ha- 
buit ;’ Berengarius® enim “ibi hyperbolice locutus est, et veri- 
tatem excessit.” Similiter Richardus de MediavillaP: “ Beren- 
garius infamatus”. .. “purgavit se per verba excessiva.” Sed is 
excessus non tam Berengario imputandus, quam illis qui pre- 
scripserunt. De transubstantiatione tamen nihil hic audimus. 

XI. Presenti tandem periculo liberatus Berengarius, sibi 
vero male conscius ob negatam veritatem, resumit animum, 
et suam ipsius revocationem, non minus absurdam quam 
impiam, scripto edito refutavit ; ‘eamque per vim sibi extor- 
tam esse,’ dixit, ‘ab ecclesid malignantium et vanitatis 
concilio.? Huie contrarium scriptum opposuit Lanfrancus 
Cadomensis, (tum prefectus monasterii in Gallié, postea in 
Anglia archiepiscopus factus Cantuariz,) et eodem tempore 
Guitmundus Aversanus rem inculcayit. Etsi vero dubium 
non sit, quin Berengarius, aliique permulti qui a partibus 
ejus steterunt, his et similibus libellis responderimt, queecun- 
que tamen scripserunt, ab illorum adversariis suppressa sunt, 
paucis duntaxat exceptis, que apud Lanfrancum legimus. 
Sed optandum esset, ut Berengaru, hominis doctissimi, et 
antiquee veritatis tenacissimi, libros integros haberemus; ex 
quibus certiora cognosci possent, quam ex eis, que ab infen- 
sissimus ejus hostibus narrantur. 

XII. Conquievit paululum certamen hoc sacramentarium 
propter bellorum tumultis, quos Nicolaus II. papa in Apulia, 
et alibi, excitdrat. Quamprimum autem ac Hildebrandus 


tium est: ‘Ego Berengarius.’ Hum- 
bertus Cardinalis.. . formulam illam 
scripserat: adversus quam Berengarius, 
perinde ac siab Humberto, non ab se 
recitata, aut ei subscriptum sua manu 
nunquam fuisset, postea apologeticum 
edidit. ] 

* Sub libri, quem contra Bereng. 
scripsit, initium. [ Vid. cap. ii.—Lan- 
franci op., ed. Par. 1648, p. 232. ] 

1 Lib. ii, ce. 15. [Vid. Alger. de 
Sacramento Corporis et Sanguinis 
Domini, lib. i. 


cap. 19.—Bibl. Patr. 


Max., tom. xxi. pag. 271.] 

™ Ubi supra. [Vid. not. ad lit. h.] 

" In c. Ego Bereng., de Cons. dist. 
ii. [ubi supr. cap. 42.—Corp. Jur. 
Can., tom. i. col. 2104. ] 

ο In c. Utrum sub figura, 72. 
[Ibid., col. 2124. ] 

Ρ In iv. dist. ix. prine. i. g. i. [ Vid. 
Richard. de Med. sup. IV. libr. Sen- 
tent.,ed. Brixiz, 1591, tom. iv. p. 109. 
—Berengarius... ad sui purgationem 
per verba excessiva contrarium asse- 
ruit. | 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIAZ. 19] 


pontificatum occupasset, qui Gregorius VII. appellatus est, 
instauratum denuo recruduit. Nam ad concilium Rome 
habitum sub isto pap4 iterum evocatus est Berengarius ; ubi, 
“multis hee, nonnullis illa [prius] sentientibus,” (ut est in 
Actis hujus conciliid ab adversariis ejus consignatis,) causa 
ejus non potuit ita opprimi, quin aliquot episcopos assertores 
invenerit. Imo, ipse quoque dux gregis Hildebrandus du- 
bitasse perhibetur’, “si illud, quod sumitur in Dominica 
Mensi, esset revera (per substantialem conversionem) Corpus 
et Sanguis Christi.” Sed, post inducias trium mensium‘ 
Berengario concessas, et jejunium cardinalibus indictumt, “ut 
Deus” per “signum” aliquod de ccelo “ostenderet,” (quod 
tamen “ minime contigit,”’) “ quis rectius sentiret de Corpore 
Domini,” Romanus pontifex, an Berengarius,—ad extremum, 
res ipsa sine oraculo transigitur, et nova palinodiz sive pro- 
fessionis formula Berengario obtrusa est; qua" “panem 
illum mysticum” (prius in magicum* et divinatorium ab 
Hildebrando transformatum) “ substantialiter converti in 
veram’ et propriam Carnem Christi,’ sub gravissimo papze 


ᾳ Excus. cum Lanfranci libro, et 
apud Binium. [Vid. Cone. Rom. yi. 
ann. 1079. § 1.—Binii Concil., ed. Co- 
lon. Agr. 1618, tom. iii. par. ii. pag. 
401. | 

© Engilb, Archiep. Trevirensis, apud 
Goldast. Imper., tom. i. [Nescio quo 
errore Engelbertum citavit Cosinus 
Trevirensem ; cujus nulla sunt scripta 
ap. Goldastum ; immo, vero, qui obiit 
A.D. 1005.—Vid.§ Gul. Eisengreinii 
Catalogum Testium Veritatis. ad ann. 
987; ed. 4to. Dilingz, 1565, fol. 76. ] 

5. Bertold. Constant., Chron. ann. 
1079. [{Vid. Append. ad Hermanni 
Contracti Chronicon, ap. Christ. Urs- 
tisii Basiliens. Germ. Hist. Illustr. ; 
ed. Francof. 1585, tom. i. p. 349.— 
Ann. 1078. Facto autem alio concilio 
Rome, x. Cal. Decemb. ..... Beren- 
garius ... synodaliter convenitur, ei- 
que induciz usque ad proxime futuram 
synodum dantur.—Ann. 1079. Grego- 
rius papa synodum Rome mense Feb- 
ruario collegit ; &c. | 

τ Benno Cardinal., in vita Hildebr. 
{ap. Orthuini Gratii Faciculum, ed. 
Lond. 1690, tom. i. pag. 79. ] 

u Habetur ista formula apud Tho. 
Waldens., tom. ii. ο. 42. [De sacra- 
mento Eucharistiz, cap. 42, 43.—Doc- 
trinal., tom. ii. pp. 73, 74.]—Et in 


Registr. Greg. VII. [ap. Harduini 
Concilia, tom. vi. par. i. coll. 1585, 
1586. | 

x Brixin. Synod. Episc. apud Abb. 
Usperg. in Chron. ad ann, 1080. [In 
MS. Dunelm. hee nota rubrica trans- 
versa deleta est.—Vid. autem Conradi 
a Liechtenaw, Urspergensis Ccenobii 
Abbatis, Chronicon; ed. Argent. 1609, 
p- 171.—Cum apud Brixiam Noricam 
triginta episcoporum conventus, nec 
non et optimatum exercitus, non solum 
Italie, sed et Germaniz, jussu regis 
Heinrici congregaretur, &c.... . Nos 
contra eundum Hiltebrandum procacis- 
simum, sacrilegia ac incendia predi- 
cantem, perjuria et homicidia defenden- 
tem, catholicam et apostolicam fidem de 
Corpore et Sanguine Domini in ques- 
tionem ponentem, heretici Berengarii 
antiquum discipulum, divinationum et 
somniorum cultorem, manifestum ne- 
cromanticum, phitonico (pythonico ?) 
spiritu laborantem, et idcirco a vera 
fide exorbitantem, judicamus canonice 
deponendum et expellendum; &c.] 

y Addit formula prescripta: “ In 
proprietate naturz.’’ [Ubi supra, not. 
ad lit. u.—Vox autem ‘‘mysticum”’ frus- 
tra queesita est; in ipsa formula “ per 
mysterium’’ legitur. } 


ΟΥΑ δ. 
ΜΙ 


CAP. 
VIL. 


S. Bernar- 
dus, A.D. 
1120. 


1S. Joh. 
vi. 56 et 
63. 


122 pE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SFIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


preecepto, deinceps confiteretur. Quod tamen an unquam 
fecerit, non adeo liquet. Quamvis enim a Malmesburiensi’” 
traditum sit, ‘eum in hac fide Romana decessisse,’ ‘non 
desunt *tamen,’ (etiam Malmesburiensi antiquiores?,) ‘ qui 
dicant,’ illum a pristind sua sententia fuisse 
** conversum.” ‘eum post ultimam 
hanc condemnationem, abjecto literarum studio, omnia pau- 


“nunquam” 
Sunt etiam qui referant, 


peribus erogisse, et victum manibus propriis 5101 queesivisse®.’ 
Alia‘, que de eo retulerunt Romanz sedis mancipia, fidem 
Hee facta sunt, uti adnotavimus, anno 
Interea vero 


non merentur. 
Christi supra millesimum septuagesimo nono. 
Berengarius non multo post moritur. 

XIII. Mortuo autem Berengario, non tamen una cum eo 
(ut est in Chronico Cassinensi®) extincta est vera ejus de 
sacra Coena sententia, et doctrina a 8. Scriptura et antiquis 
patribus recepta. Nam Bernardus abbas Clarevallensis, qui 
post initium szeculi XII. floruit, veteris Ecclesiz de mysteriis 
doctrinam constanter adhuc retinuit. In sermone’ de Cena 
Domini, ‘externam sacramenti formam’ ex verbis institutionis, 
et ‘spiritualem ejus efficaciam’ ex concione’ Christi, tanquam 


2 De Gest. Anglia, 1. iii. c. 58. [Vid. 
Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post 
Bedam, ed. Francof. 1601, pag. 114.— 
Berengarius plane, quamvis ipse sen- 
tentiam correxerit, omnes tamen, quos 
ex totis terris depravaverat, convertere 
nequivit. Adeo pessimum est alios 
exemplo vel verbo a bono infirmare, 
quia fortassis peceatum te gravabit 
alienum, cum deletum fuerit tuum. | 
—Et post eum ab aliis. Vide Bell. 
Chronol. ad ann. 1079. [Imo, potius, 
ad ann. 1078.—Bellarmini op., ed. Col. 
Agr. 1617, tom. vii. col. 258.—Beren- 
garius.... tandem resipuit, et in fide 
Catholica obiit. ] 

4 Pegn. Comment. 31 ad 2 part. 
Direct. Inquisit. [Vid. schol. 24,— 
Nicolai Eymerici Directorium Inqui- 
sitorum, cum scholiis Francisci Pegnz 
Hisp., ed. Rome 1578, p. 56.—Non 
tamen desunt, qui dicant nunquam 
conversum Berengarium ; quorum 
opinionem, &c. | 

» Bertold. Const., qui tempore Be- 
rengarii vixit; ad ann. 1083. [ Chron. 
ubi supr. not. ad lit. 1. p. 352.— 


Fo tempore ( Berengarius) deficiens 
abiit in locum suum ; qui, licet eandem 
heresim sepissime in synodo abjura- 


vit, ad vomitum tamen suum canino 
more non expavit redire. | 

¢ Vincent. in Spec. lib. 26. cap. 40. 
[cap. 30. in MSS.—Vid. lib. xxv. cap. 
30; ed. Venet. 1591, fol. 349.—Beren- 
garius in fine ita resipuit, ut sine re- 
tractatione a quibusdam sanctus habea- 
tur, plenus eleemosynis et humilitate, 
magnarum possessionum dominus dis- 
pertiendo, non famulus abscondendo et 
adorando, &e. | 

4 Baron. ad ann. 1088. ὃ 15, ὅτ. 
[ed. Mogunt. 1606, tom. xi. col. 793, 
794, et seq. ] 

e Chron. Cassin., lib. 111. cap. 33. 
[cap. 35.—Ed. 41ο. Neapol. 1606, p. 
381.—Albericus. . .. librum edidit, 

. in quo omnes assertiones ejus 
(Bereng. destruxit, sternzque obli- 
vioni tradidit. | 

f Sermo de Cana Domini. [S. 
Bernardi op., ed. Par. 1586, tom. i. col. 
187.—Neque enim tradit mater par- 
vulo nucem integram, sed frangit eam, 
et nucleum porrigit. Sic et ego vobis 

. . Sacramenta que clausa sunt 
aperire debueram; &c. ; 
SG Sacramentum dicitur sacrum 
signum, sive sacrum secretum. Multa 
siquidem fiunt propter se tantum; &c.] 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 123 


CAP. 


corticem et nucleum, sive sacramentum et rem sacramenti, 
VIL. 


conjungit. Rursus; volens ibidem explicare sacramenta 
non esse consideranda, ‘ ut res absolutas,’ sed ut mysteria, in 
quibus, visibili signo dato, invisibilis Divine gratiz Corporis- 
que et Sanguinis Christi peragitur dispensatio, dicit ‘ visibile 
signum esse velut annulum, qui datur, non propter se et 
absolute, sed ob delatz alicujus hereditatis possessionem et 
investituram.’ “ Multa” (inquit) “ fiunt propter se tantum ; 
alia vero propter alia designanda, et ipsa dicuntur et sunt 
signa .... Datur annulus propter annulum absolute, et 
nulla est significatio; datur etiam ad investiendum aliquem 
in hereditatem!, et signum est; ita ut jam dicere possit, qui '[“dehe- 
accipit (annulum :) ‘Annulus (per se) non valet quidquam, Secs 
sed heereditas est quam querebam.’ In huncitaque modum, 
appropinquans passioni, Dominus de gratid Sud investiri?? [“inves- 
curayit Suos, ut invisibilis gratia signo aliquo visibili preesta- pee 
retur. Ad hoc’ instituta sunt omnia sacramenta; ad hoc? *[“hee.”] 
Eucharistiz participatio.” Sicut autem nemo fingit annulum ‘[“hee.”] 
in res ipsas hereditate possidendas, (puta terras aut domos,) 
substantialiter conversum esse, sic etiam non nisi absurde et 

falso quis dixerit, panis et vini sacramentum in Corpus et 
Sanguinem Christi substantialiter transmutari. At in ser- 

mone de purificatione’, qui pro indubitato habetur, apertius 
loquitur : ‘Quod Christi Corpus in mysterio cibus mentis sit, 

et non ventris, proinde corporaliter non manducatur: sicut 

enim cibus est®, ita et comedi intelligitur.’ Item, de 8. Mar- ὃ [‘esse,” 
tino, qui itidem sermo ejus indubitatus est: “ Usque hodie” ἢ MSS. 
(inquit) “eadem Caro nobis, sed spiritualiter, utique non 
corporaliter®, exhibetur.” Est enim certa quoque veritas 6 [“cama- 
rerum spiritualiter preesentium. Quod autem alibi dicit’, EE 
“ sacerdotem tenere Deum in manibus suis,” rhetorica am- 
plificatio est; quemadmodum locutus est Chrysostomus*: 

« Adest sacerdos, gestans Spiritum Sanctum.” 


i (Vid. Serm. in Coené Dom.—Op., 


& Sermo de pur. B. Marie. [Hic 
tom. ii. col. 387, 388. —Te presentem 


sermo, qui sit, non liquido patefactus 


est.—Vid. autem Serm. cujusdam in 
Coena Domini, ap. S. Bernardi op., 
tom. ii. col. 392.—Cibus iste non est 
ventris, sed mentis.... Tres autem 


portiones, que in Altari fiunt de Cor- 
pore Christi, mysticam significationem 
habent. ] 

~ » Sermo de S. Martino. [Vid. supr. 
cap. ili, num. ii. p. 44, not. ad lit. b.] 





habere mereamur pre mauibus, &c. 

. sacerdotem Deum suum tenere, et 
aliis dando porrigere. ] 

k Lib. iii, de Sacerdotio, [8 4.— 
S. Chrysostomi op., ed. Ben. Par. 
1718, tom. i. p. 383.—€ornke yap ὃ 
ἱερεὺς, ov πῦρ καταφέοων, ἀλλὰ τὸ 
Πνεῦμα τὸ ἽΔΑγιον.] 


124 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


CAP. XIV. Eodem szculo duodecimo floruit Rupertus abbas 
—— Tuitiensis, et scriptor suze etatis clarissimus; qui panis sub- 
R : : — : : 
‘Abe Stantiam in Eucharistii non converti, sed manere, docuit. 

? 
τος Verba ejus subjicio. “Totum” (inquit') “attribuetis opera- 
*  tioni Spiritus S., cujus effectus non est destruere vel corrum- 
pere substantiam, quamcumque in usus suos assumit, sed 
substantiz bono permanenti, quod erat, invisibiliter adjicere 
quod non erat.” Addit equidem mcommodam opinionem 
de unione™ panis et Corporis Christi hypostatica; sed” illa 
enata est (sicut etiam ejusdem etatis aliz) ex importuna 
quidam curiositate modum przsentiz et conjunctionis cum 
ane determinandi; circa quem nimis multo se torquet vir 
3 
suo evo eximius. Interim transubstantiationem nec docuit 
1[* credi- nec decrepit}. 
ee Ἴ XV. Non admodum diu post hic de re Concertationes 
P. Lom- aliquot ab Algero monacho et aliis excitatas, libros Senten- 
bardus, ies : ΒΝ - 
Α 1140. #arum congessit Petrus Lombardus : In quorum quarto agit 
Sent., lib, de sacramento Eucharistie; dictisque nonnullis veterum 
4. 5 Ee Salis came 
doceri existimat°, “substantiam panis in Corpus, vinique 
substantiam in Sanguinem” Christi ‘ converti.” At mox 
subjungit ?: “Si autem queritur, qualis sit illa conversio, an 
formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire non 
sufficio.” Nondum itaque, tanquam sententiam ex fide cer- 
tam, transubstantiationem habuit: imo, in illa ipsa (tanquam 
opimione probabili) astruendd, non satis 5101 constare, sed 
fluctuare et prevaricatorem agere, dictisque veterum magis 
causam suam oppugnare quam stabilire, videtur. De acci- 
dentibus vero remanentibus sine subjecto, et de fractione 
Corporis Christi in partes, (quemadmodum ex _preescripto 
yl 
Nicolai papz profiteri jussus est Berengarius,) mirabiliter 
atque equidem miserabiliter philosophatur. 
Otho XVI. Otho Frisingensis episcopus, vir non minus pietate 
aig et doctriné quam nobilitate insignis %, (fuit enim Henrici IV. 

1145. 

1 In Exod., lib. 11. cap. 10. [Ru-  quuntur, usque ad vocem ‘eximius,’ 
perti Comment., ed. Col. Agr. 1602, deleta sunt rubricé. Quinetiam Bel- 
tom. i. p. 267. ] larmini verba, que margine (vid. not. 

m Ex qua consequebatur panem  adlit.m.) addita sunt, manuscripto de- 
esse Corpus Christi, sed Corpus non sunt. | 
humanum, neque carneum, sed pana- ° Dist. x. [Pet. Lombardi Sentent. 
ceum. [Hee verba sunt Bellarmini, 110. iv. dist. x. cap. 2, ed. Basil. 1513, 
lib. 111. de Euch. cap. 11.—Op., ed. In- [0]. 166.—Vid. etiam cap. 1. fol. 165.] 
golst. 1601, col. 712.—Conf. Ruperti P Dist. xi. [cap. iim Ubi supr. fol. 
Comm. in Exod. ubi supra, col. 268. | 166. | 

π {In MS. Dunelm. verba que se- 4 [ Vid. Possevin. Appar. Sacr., ed. 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA, 125 


imperatoris nepos, Henrici V. sororius, Frederici patruus, 
et Conradi regis frater uterinus,) eodem tempore fioruit. 
Credidit autem et scripsit’, “panem et vinum manere in 
Eucharistia,” sicut et alii non pauci ejusdem coztanei. 
XVII. Novum vero ‘transubstantiationis’? vocabulum A.D. 
haud facile’ quis inveniat ante hujus XII. seculi medium. 1 Re A 
Primum enim occurrit apud Petrum Blesensem’, qui sub mere.”— 


MS. Du- 
nelm. | 


CAP. 
Vile 


Alexandro papa III. vixit, et Stephanum Eduensem epis- 
Quod 


enim a recentioribus quibusdam!® refertur ad seeculum X., id 


copum*, cujus et wtas et scripta valde incerta sunt. 


sine testimonio idonei alicujus auctoris ab eis factum est; 
uti antea* dicebamus. 

XVIII. Subsecutum est seculum XIIL., quum, mundo A.D.1215. 
jam senescente, religionis status perturbatissimus esset, et a 
pontifex Romanus non solum super universam Ecclesiam, sed Papa. 
super ipsa etiam imperia, ac orbis totius regna, tanquam in 
solio gloriz, sese efferret. Enati tum sunt novi subinde 
monachorum ordines, a quibus, contra veteris ac purioris 
Keclesiz sententiam, de multis quidem religionis capitibus, 
inter alia vero de sacramento Corporis et Sanguinis Christi 
vehementissime declamatum est. Neque aliud jam restabat, 
quam ut nova transubstantiationis doctrina, a pontifice 
Romano confirmata, toti Christiano orbi sic obtruderetur, ut 
nemini contra mutire liceret. Id preestitit Innocentius IIT. 
papa; qui, 30 annorum juvenis, Celestino III. substitutus 
est: (et’) vestigiis Hildebrandi pontificis strenue insistens, et ?[In MS.] 
synodum Rom satis numerosam in Laterano convocans, ite 
primus omnium hoc nuperrime excogitatum transubstantia- ὁ 


Col. Agr. 1608, tom. ii. p. 204.—Et 
conf. Ottonis e Marchionibus Austriz 
episc. Frisingensis Chronicon; item, 
libros duos de rebus gestis Frederici I. 
Barbarosse, ap. Christiani Urstisii 
Germ. Hist. Script. ] 

τ Christ. Agricola in Antipistor., p. 
13. [Hoe opus, cui titulus est ‘ Pro- 
pugnaculum Anti-Pistorianum,’ (ed. 
Keenig.) bibliotheeariis quidem haud 
fere notum, latet. ] 

* Epist. 140. [ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., 
tom. xxiv. p. 1053,—Pane et vino 
transubstantiatis virtute verborum cce- 
lestium in Corpus et Sanguinem 
Christi, accidentia, que prius ibi fue- 


rant, sine subjecto remanent et appa- 
rent. | 

Ὁ De Sacram. Altaris,in Bibl. Pa- 
trum. [Vid. Steph. Eduens. de saer. 
Alt., cap. xiv.— Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. 
xx. p. 1879.—Quasi diceret: Panem 
quem accepi in Corpus Meum transub- 
stantiavi; We. 

" Card. Bellarm. [de Script. Eccles. 
—Op., Col. Agr. 1617, tom. vii. col. 
128.—Stephanus Eduensis.... .dici- 
tur floruisse anno Dom. 950. ]—Et 
Possevin. de Scriptoribus. [Vid. Ap- 
parat. Sacr., ed. Col. Agr. 1608, tom. 
ii. p. 434.—Vivebat ann. 950. ] 

x Cap. V. num. i. [p. 54. ] 


126 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


CAP. tionis dogma, tanquam Fidei articulum necessario credendum, 


cs sua tantum autoritate’ statuere ausus est. 
lanu- pene ; ; ἂν, 
πὸ XIX. Quantum 5101 tribuerit, qualeque fuerit hominis 


may ingenium, et que studia, ex his, que subjicio, cuilibet zsti- 
“sua tan- Mare in promptu eritY. “ Mihv’ (inquit’) “ dicitur in pro- 
hm aus, pheta, ‘Constitui te super gentes et regna, ut evellas, et de- 
desunt.] struas, et disperdas, et dissipes, et edifices, et plantes.’ 
Mihi quoque dicitur in Apostolo, ‘ Tibi dabo claves regni coe- 
lorum.’” .... . Sum, enim, “inter Deum et hominem 
medius constitutus, citra Deum, sed ultra hominem ;” imo, 
“major homine, qui de omnibus judicem, a nemine vero 
fy ae judicari” possim.—‘ Annon ego* sponsus sum’, et quilibet 
Verba illa vestrum amicus sponsi? Utique sponsus, quia habeo” spon- 


vee sam “nobilem, divitem et sublimem, sacrosanctam Romanam 
mens.  Keclesiam; que... . cunctorum fidelium mater est ac 


magistra ;” . . et “dotem mihi tribuit absque pretio 
pretiosam?, spiritualium videlicet plenitudinem, et latitudi- 
nem temporalium, magnitudinem et multitudinem utrorum- 
que.”—* Fecit Deus* duo magna luminaria in firmamento 
celi:’ ... “ fecit” etiam “duo magna luminaria” in firma- 
mento “universalis Ecclesia ;” ... “id est, duas instituit 
dignitates, que sunt pontificalis auctoritas, et regalis potestas. 
Sed illa que preest diebus, id est, spiritualibus, major est ; 
que vero carnalibus, minor: ut, quanta est inter solem et 
lunam, tanta inter pontifices (Romanos) et reges differentia 
cognoscatur.” Heee ille, Christi jam factus non vicarius 
modo, sed etiam rivalis: que nunc commemoro, ut videamus 
qualis fuerit rerum conditio, et Latinz Ecclesiz facies, quando 
transubstantiatio pro fidei articulo ab Innocentio papa pro- 
posita est et obtrusa; quemadmodum#? vir doctissimus D. 
Georg. Calixtus, scriptor omni laude ac imitatione dignus, 


dior, Rachel gratior, Anna devotior, 
Susanna castior, Judith animosior, 
Edissa formosior. Multz filia, &e. 

. universas. Cum hac mihi sacra- 


y [Pro “in promptu erit’’ legit 
“promptum est’? MS. Dunelm. ] 

z Innoc. III., Serm. ii. [in Conseer. 
Pont. Max.—Op., ed. Colon. 1575, tom. 


i. pag. 189. ] mentale conjugium, &c. | 
4 Idem, Serm. iii. [ubisupr. pp. 192, ¢ Epist. ad Imp. Constantinop.— 
194. ] « Extra, de Majorit. et Obed. c. 6. [ Vid. 


> Addit: ‘ Multe filiz congregave- Decretal. Greg. IX., lib. i. tit. xxxiii. 


runt divitias, hee autem sola super- 
gressa est universas.’’ [Ibid., p. 192. 
—Hece (Rom. Eccl.) est Sara matu- 
rior, Rebecca prudentior, Lea foecun- 


cap. vi.—Corp. Jur. Can. ed. Par. 1612, 
tom. ii. col. 401, 402. ] 

4 [Hee que sequuntur de Calixto 
verba manuscriptis desunt. ] 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI¥®. 127 


hee omnia de Innoc. III.* plenissime declaravit et prose- 
cutus est. 

XX. Is igitur Innocentius, qui, ut auctoritatem suam ex- 
tolleret, Philippum imperatorem vexavit, Othonem IV. im- 
perio spoliavit, et Johannem Angliz regem impulit, ut et 
Angliam et Hiberniam in manus ejus traderet, ac Romano 
pontifici vectigales faceret ; quique, sub umbone spiritualium, 
arbitrium rerum terrenarum, imo ipsarum terrarum, sibi 
vindicavit ; qui denique, “super omnes mortales ambitiosus 
et superbus, pecunizque sititor insatiabilis,” (verba recito 
Matthezi Parisiensis‘,) “et ad omnia scelera pro premiis 
datis vel promissis cereus et proclivis fuit :’—is (inquam) 
in Lateranensi suo concilio transubstantiationem pro fidei 
articulo habendam proposuit’; et postquam® a concilio ut 
decerneretur obtinere non potuit, proprio imperio, contra 
quod nemo vel hiscere audebat, stabilitum ivit. Qui enim 
sub illius concilii nomine hodie extant et jactitantur canones, 
concilii non sunt, sed decreta tantum Innocenti pape, ab 
ipso primum conscripta, et'in eodem concilio recitata; ubi 
cum multis displicerent, postea, ab ejus nepote Gregorio 


nono, in libros decretalium sub certis titulis redacta*. 


e Exere. de Transubst. [{Hujus li- 
bri inter multas bibliothecas nullum in- 
ventum est exemplar. Vide autein Joh. 
Molleri -Cimbr. Lit., tom. iii. p. 200, 
vy. Geo. Calixtus.—Exercitationes de 
Transubstantiatione contra Pontificios 
duz, (quorum secundam Joh. Andr. 
Quenstedius Theologus postea Wite- 
bergensis, Respondentis functus officio, 
defendit,) Helms. 1643, in 4. junctim 
recuse; adjuncta ejusdem de sancto 
Eucharistiz sacramento assertione, cu- 
rante Frederico Ulrico filio, ibidem A. 
1675, in 4. Commendantur a Gerh. 
Titio, in Ostensione Summaria contra 
Pontificios, p. 81, 82. } 

f In Historia Joh. Regis Anglia. 
[Vid. Matthzi Paris. Hist. Major., ed. 
Lond. 1640, p. 245. ] 

8 [Proxima que sequuntur verba 
ad MS. Dunelm. sic scripta sunt: ... 
‘et postquam nihil a concilio decerni 
potuit, propria sua auctoritate, contra 
quam nemo vel hiscere auderet, stabili- 
tum esse voluit:’’ (pro quibus deletis 
verbis, ‘esse voluit,’ posteriori manu 
scriptum legitur vocabulum ‘‘ivit.’’) ] 

4 Matth. Paris. in Hist. Minori, [Cu- 


jus libri, adhue non impressi, latet 
cod. MS. in Bibliotheca Regia.—Vid. 
Watt., Bib]. Brit., tom. ii. col. 731. ]— 
Platina, in vita Innocentii III. { Hist. 
de vit. Pont. Rom., ed. Lovan. 1572, 
p. 165.—Venere multa tum quidem in 
consultationem, nec decerni tamen quic- 
quam aperte potuit; &c.] 

i Verba Matth. Paris. in Hist. Ma- 
jori, ad ann. 1215. (ed. Lond. 1640, p. 
272.—His omnibus congregatis,.... 
facto prius ab ipso papa exhortationis 
sermone, recitata sunt in pleno concilio 
capitula lx., que aliis placabilia, aliis 
videbantur onerosa. } 

k [Extensius in codicibus manu- 
scriptis hee sententia sic protracta est: 
.... sub certis titulis redacta; quem- 
admodum in confutatione hominis cu- 
jusdam vani * et indocti,(qui ab Ecclesia 
Anglicana in hac ultima persecutione 
apostatavit,) una cum asseclis et appro- 
batoribus suis, latius nobis aliquando 
dicendum erit.’’— * Conf. tractatum, 
cui titulus est: “ An Answer toa Li- 
bell written by D. Cosens against the 
great general Councell of Laterane un- 
der Pope Innocent the Third; wherein 


CAP. 


VILE 


CEASE: 


WET. 


i μ᾿ Ex- 
communi- 
cationis 
vinculo 
innode- 
tur.’ | 


Transub- 
stantiatio 
quibus 
modis sta- 
bilita. 

2 [** stabi- 
litum 
ivit.’’— 
MSS.] 

A multis 
una cum 
curia Ro- 
mana re- 
jecta. 





128 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


XXI. Idem vero pontifex, postquam hereticos esse pro- 
nunciavit', quicunque deinceps “Christi Corpus et San- 
guinem in sacramento Altaris, sub speciebus panis et vini, 
transubstantiatis pane in Corpus et vino in Sanguinem, vera- 
citer contineri,” negaverint, eosdem omnes, cujuscunque 
tandem dignitatis aut officii simt™, “secularibus potestatibus 
animadversione debit paniendos” (id est, cremandos) tradit ; 
in suspectos inquiri jubet ; receptores et fautores eorum, in- 
fames, intestabiles, atque hzereditatum et officlorum omnium 
incapaces esse judicat; et reliquos Christianos adversus eos 
extimulat. Porro jubet", “per censuram Ecclesiasticam 
compelli szeculares potestates,...ut..... pro defensione” 
(hujus) “ fidei publice juramentum prestent, quod de terris 
suis universos hzreticos, ab Ecclesia” (Roman4) “ denotatos, 
.... exterminare studebunt .... Si vero” (inquit) “ domi- 
nus temporalis” hoc “ neglexerit, . . excommunicetur!: et, 
si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur id summo 
pontifici, ut ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet abso- 
lutos, et terram” (suam) “ exponat Catholicis” ( Romanis) 
“occupandam, qui eam exterminatis heereticis” (ἢ. 6. tran- 
substantiationem non credentibus) “ sine ulla contradictione 
possideant,” ἕο. Atque in hunec modum Innocentius tertius, 
per excommunicationes, exercitus, rebelliones, carnificinas, 
et vivicomburia, novum fidei sue dogma stabilire voluit’. 

XXII. Nisi autem iis artibus et machinis usus fuisset, ne 
illi quidem, qui Romanze Ecclesiz adhzserunt, eam doctrinam 
admisissent. Nec sic enim ita obtinuit, quin multos subinde 
et magnos habuerit contradictores. Imo non solum transub- 
stantiationem, sed ipsam etiam LEcclesiam (rectius dixero 
Curiam) Romanam, quee (si Gersonem cancellarium Parisi- 
ensem audimus°) hoc tempore “ tota brutalis, et carnalis, et 


the many and great errors of the (said ?) 
D. Cosens are manifested to the world. 
By Thomas Vane, Doctor in Divinity 
of Cambridge, &c. Paris, 1646.”— 
Item, vide alterum libel]lum cui est 
titulus: “A Lost Sheep returned 
home; or the motives of the Conver- 
sion to the Catholic Faith of Thomas 
Vane, Doctor of Divinity, and lately 
cnaplain to his Majesty the King of 
England, &c. Paris, 1648.’’ ] 

1 Extra, de Fide et Sum. Trid. c. 
Firmiter credimus, [ Vid. Greg. IX. 


Decretal., lib. i. tit. i. cap. 1.—Corp. 
Jur. Can., ed. Par. 1612, tom. ii. col. 9. ] 

m Tbidem. [Hzc verba canoni supra 
citato desunt.—Vid. autem Cone. La- 
teran. iv. cap. 3.—Labbe, tom, xi. par, 
i. fol. 148.—Conf. Gregorii IX.'Decre- 
tal., lib. v. tit. vii. cap. 10, 11, 12, 13.— 
Corp. Jur. Can., tom. ii. coll. 1536,— 
1544. ] 

" Ibidem. [Vid. Conc. Lateran. iv. 
cap. 3; ubi supr. coll. 147, 148. ] 

® Gerson. de Cone. Gener, [Op., ed. 
Par. 1606, tom. i. col. 224. ] 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTI&. 129 


nihil fere sapiens” fuit “de his que Dei sunt,” a quamplu- 
rimis repudiatam esse nemo non novit. Et profecto, posita 
semel transubstantiatione, compluribus superstitionibus et ia 
erroribus fundamentum substratum est, quos homines Deum multo- 
timentes nequaquam probare aut ferre potuerunt. Quin Vn fun 
et inter ipsos transubstantiatores excrevit silva multarum damen- 
inextricabilium et portentosarum qustionum, quibus ita se sae 
fatigabant illi quos scholasticos appellamus, ut recte affirmari 
possit, enatam tunc esse de sanctissima Eucharistia, et ado- 
ratione? hostiz, theologiam prorsus novam (imo monstrosam) 
et veteribus omnibus inauditam. Neque etiam minus cre- Supersti- 
. . : +s tiones et 
verunt illusiones mal, falsa miracula, visiones conficte, ἘΣ ἐπι ον 
somnia fraudulenta, atque alia Christiana Fide indigna, de Transubst. 
corporali presentid Christi, figmenta. Nempe, etate ista, ge 
alius in hostid vidit puerum, alius carnem, alius Sanguinem, 
et quicquid tandem vanissimis superstitiosorum hominum 
mentibus occurrebat. Unus4, “instante morte, quia nil 
retinere poterat, Corpus Christi recipere non audebat ;” sed, 
“quum nudato pectore, et brachiis expansis,” “ adoratum 
illud” “ approximaret, hostia prosiliens de manu sacerdotis, 
facta apertura,” sponte “ intravit in locum ubi cor” hominis! 
moribundi “ latuit;” “et absque omni cicatricis vestigio 
reclusus est locus; sicque recumbens spiritum reddidit.” 
Alius', “quum mori deberet, . . petit sibi latus suum 
lavari, et panno mundissimo Corpus Christi supra poni. 
Quo facto, pannus paulatim Corpori Christi cessit ; et mox, 
ut” idem “ Corpus nudam hominis cutem tetigit, usque ad 
cor” ejus, “ cunctis videntibus, penetravit. Narrant etiam, 
seu potius fabulantur*, quomodo, “ posito Corpore Christi” 
(hoe est, pane consecrato, hune enim Corpus Christi vocant,) 
“in dolio super avend, equus, bos, et asinus, genua flectentes, 
Dominum in hostii adoraverunt.” Heec et similia innumera 
tum fingi cceperunt: talis etiam fingendi temeritas et au- 


ΟἾΑΘΕΣ 
VIE 


1 [5361]. O- 
thonis Im- 
peratoris. ] 


P [Manuscriptis desunt hee verba: 

. . fet adoratione hostiz.”’ | 

4 Tho. Walsing. in Hypod. Neustr. 
ad ann, 1218. [ Vid. ann. 1215.—Ypo- 
digma, &c. ed. Lond. 1574, p. 55. ] 

τ Discip. de temp. Serm. Ixxx. [ scil. 
Sermones de tempore et de sanctis, 
auctore Johanne Herolt, vulgo dicto 
Discipulo; Ed. 4to. (black letter) Ro- 


COSIN. 


thomagi, s. a. et 5. p.] 

s [ Vid. Bellarm. de Euch., lib. iii. 
cap. 8.—Op., ed. Col. Agr. 1617, tom. 
iii. col. 701, 702, 703.—Item, Cesarii 
monachi Cisterciens. Dialog. miracu- 
lorum, dist. ix. cap.7; ap. Bertrandi 
Tissier Biblioth. Patr. Cistere., ed. 
Bono-Fonte, 1662, tom. ii. p. 268. ] 


CeASPR: 


Vite 


Novi mo- 
nachorum 
ordines. 


130 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


dacia ad posteros derivata est.—Id quod, ex ipsius cardi- 
nalis Bellarmini scriptis', serenissimus Anglie rex Jacobus 
notavit, “de equa quidam devota, et hostiam (quam scivisset 
rite consecratam, ae certo transubstantiatam,) de geniculis 
adorante.” Czesarius monachus, qui hoc ipso tempore et 
paulo post Innocentium ILI. vixit, pleraque hujusmodi mi- 
racula commemorat; a quo tamen recitatur historia, que 
transubstantiationem, usque ad hos dies, etiam literato sacer- 
doti et illustris ecclesiz canonico penitus ignotam fuisse 
ostendit. ‘ Colonie” (inquit") “ canonicus quidam extitit, 
ordine sacerdos, [arte medicus,] nomine Petrus. Cum die 
quidam unus ex ejus concanonicis infirmus, eo presente, 
esset communicaturus, et ei sacerdos” (celebrans) “ diceret : 
Credis hoc esse verum Corpus Domini quod natum est de 
Virgine, [et pro te passum in cruce?] illeque responderet : 
Credo ;—prefatus Petrus utrorumque verba notans expavit. 
Postea solus conveniens Everhardum scholasticum ecclesiz, 
qui et ipse communioni intererat, ait” ei: Nunquid “ inter- 
rogavit sacerdos infirmum illum bene?” et respondit ille: 
“ Etiam” bene, “inquit: qui’ enim “aliter credit, hzreticus 
est*. Tunc Petrus ejulans, pectusque tundens, exclamavit 
dicens: Vze mihi misero sacerdoti! quomodo hactenus missas 
celebravi? Nam usque ad hance horam putabam speciem 
panis et vini post consecrationem tantum esse sacramentum, 
id est, signum et reprzsentationem Dominici Corporis et 
Sanguinis.” 

XXIII. Paulo ante dicere ccoeperamus, in Romana Ecclesia 
enatas esse, una cum nova ista transubstantiationis doctrina, 
novas monachorum sectas ; que sane brevi admodum tem- 


pore in immensum creverunt. 


* Card. Bell. Apolog. q. 132. [Hee 
verba latent.—Vid. autem Bellarmini 
Apol. pro Respons, sua-ad libr. Jacobi 
Magn. Brit. Regis, cap. ix.—Op., ed. 
Col. Agr. 1617, tom. vii. col. 779.— 
Ponit exemplum miraculi, . . . quod 
oblitum jumentum pabulisacramentum 
curvatis genibus adoravit. ‘ Et tamen,’ 
inquit rex, ‘ certe erubescet dicere Bel- 
larminus institutum esse sanctissimum 
sacramentum, quod adorent oves, et 
boves, et pecora campi.’..... Mi- 
raculum factum precibus sancti Anto- 
nii, etiamsi a rege nunc rideatur, effecit 


Jam enim ordini Dominica- 


tamen coram ingenti multitudine, ut 
Fides Catholica de sacramentaria he- 
resi triumpharet. Idem enim Deus 
fecit, ut jumentum famelicum, pabulo 
sibi ostenso neglecto, ad reverentiam 
sanetissimo sacramento exhibendam 
accurreret, qui fecit ut vacce fate, &e. 
—(1 Reg. vi.) ] 

u (Vid. Czsarii Monachi Dial. Mi- 
raculorum, dist. ix. cap. 56 ; ap. Bibli- 
oth. Patr. Cisterciens., (ut supr. not. ad 
lit. s.,) tom. ii. p. 287. ] 

* Sic enim decrevit Innocentius III, 
[ Vid. supr. num, xviii.—xxi. ] 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. [9] 


norum (quos inquisitores suos ad occidendos et creman- Ὁ 
dos hzreticosy Innocentius III. instituerat) Franciscanorum ——— 
mendicantium ordo accessit; Augustiniani etiam eremitz 
restaurati sunt, et ordo Carmelitarum. Ex his enati sunt, 

qui hodie vulgo scholastici solent appellari, studiis qualia Scholas- 
quidem eo tempore erant, et commentariis in magistrum = 
Petrum Lombardum, incumbentes. 

XXIV. Fatigabant se illi, uti diximus, portentosis circa Quas- 
transubstantiationem questionibus. Et quidem tales sunt, pace 
quales pize aures audire prorsus abhorrent. Quzrunt’ enim, porten- 
1. An sit Corpus Christi illud, ‘ quod quandoque apparet in aah 
specie carnis vel pueri in Altari,” quodque in eadem specie 
carnis adoratur? Et respondent, se nihil scire: “ quia hujus- 
modi apparitiones szpe' accidunt,” et fiunt vel “ humana' [“quan- 
procuratione, vel forte operatione diabolica.” 2. An “mu- scat 
res” (qui non bene obseratas hostias sepissime epulantur) - 
comedant ipsum Christi Corpus? vel, “si canis* aut por- 
cus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram,” an “ Corpus 
Domini simul cum specie non trajiceretur in ventrem” ejus- 
dem “canis vel porci?” Et respondent quidem aliqui, (aliis 
tamen aliter sentientibus,) quod, licet “ Corpus Christi non 
intret in os bruti, ut cibus corporalis,’ “intrat” tamen 
‘simul cum specie, ratione inseparabilitatis unius ab alio :”’ 
(nescientes quid dicant.) Quamdiu enim? “species panis 
persistit in esse suo vero,” tamdiu simul et “ inseparabiliter 
persistit” Corpus Christi. Unde, si species talis trajiciatur 3 [“con- 
in ventrem,” vel “ ejiciatur per vomitum,” “ necessarium est, aint 
quod et ipsum” Corpus Domini “ similiter trajiciatur,” atque 
*‘ejiciatur :” . . “et ob hoc solent anime pie” (verba scholas- 
ticorum repeto) “ frequenter partes hostiz ejectas per vomi- 
tum cum magna reverentid iterato sumere.” Alii etiam 
respondent’, ‘quod animul brutum .... non sacramenta- 
liter, sed per accidens” tamen, “ Corpus Christi manducat ; 
sicut manducaret ille, qui sumeret hostiam consecratam, 


Υ Sic enim transubst. negantes vo- par. iv. quest. xi. mem. ii, art. 2. § 1; 
cavit. [Vid. num. xxi. } ubi supra, p. 380. ] 

z Alex. Alens., l.iv. q. 53. m. 4. a. 1. > Ibid. q. 53. m. 3. [ Vid. par. iv. q. 
[Vid. Alexandri Alensis Sum. Theol. xi. m. ii. art. 4. ὃ 3, ubi supra, pp. 
par. iv. quest. xi. de manducatione 407, 408. | 
Eucharistie, mem. ii. art. 4. ὃ 3; ed. ¢ Thom. Aquin. Sum., p. iii. q. Ixxx. 
Col. Agr. 1622, tom. iv. p. 410. ] a. 3. [δ Ad’tertium.—Vid. Sum. Theol., 

" Idem, gq. 45. m. 1. art. 2. [Vid. ed. Venet. 1596, tom. ii. p, 280. ] 


K 2 


CRAVE: 


ὙΠῚ: 


132 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


nesciens eam consecratam esse.” 9. Querunt de hostiis 
mucidis et putridis; et, quia Corpus Christi incorruptibile 
et incomputribile est, ideo respondent?, “ vere hoc non fieri, 
sed videri tantum ita esse, quamvis ita non sit; sicut 
Christus sub specie hortulani apparuit, etiamsi hortulanus 
non ἔπι. 4. De hostiis indigestis querunt, et per stoma- 
chum transeuntibus in secessum, de aliis projectis in cloacam 
aut lutum, an tales hostiz “ desinant esse Corpus Christi ?” 
Respondent*® vero, quod, “ remanentibus speciebus, insepara- 
biliter etiam remanet Corpus Christi, licet in cloacam vel in 
latrinam projiciatur.” Contrariam autem opinionem dicunt 
non teneri, neque securum esse ut ab ullo teneatur. Pon- 
tifex enim eam teneri sub excommunicationis poend pro- 
hibuit. Addunt ergo recentiores scholasticig: “Si quis modo” 
contrarium “ diceret,” post determinationem papz, “ab Εο- 
clesii’”’ (Romani scilicet) “ condemnaretur :” imo agnoscunt 
hance doctrinam ad Fidem pertinere ; de qué nemini dubitare 
licet, quia contraria “ per Gregorium XI. damnata est.” 5. 
De accidentibus querunt, an sit ibi Corpus Christi sub 
accidentibus, remota’ inherentii ?— contra logicam: an ex 
accidentibus mures nutriantur, ac ex lis vermes generentur?— 
contra physicam. 6. An simul et eodem momento Corpus 
Christi sursum et deorsum moveatur, elevante scilicet hos- 


ἃ Alger., lib. ii. cap. 1. [de sacram. 
Corp. et Sang. Dom.; ap. Bibl. Patr. 
Max., tom. xxi. p. 277.—Algeri verba 
sunt: ‘ Non solum Corpori Christi, 
sed et ipsi sacramento visibili,’ eddem 
causa mucorem negamus et putredinem. 
... . Possunt tamen videri mucidz 
(se. species,) et putridz, quamvis ita 
non sint: sicat Christus hortulanus, 
peregrinus, prout erant intuentium 
mentes.” | 

ἐπ οτη: sual ἵν. Ching 15. Gh 20 bm Ὁ 
[ Hee ipsissima verba latent. Nulla 
porro est questio ii. Vid. queest.i. art. 
2.—Op., ed. Venet. 1593, tom. vi. fol. 
45.—Si Corpus Christi per negligen- 
tiam, vel quocunque modo, in aliquem 
locum immundum projiciatur, non di- 
citur quod desinat esse sub speciebus, 
&c... .. Si enim vere Corpus Christi 
sub speciebus, &c. . . . speciebus re- 
manentibus, non poterit esse, quod de- 
sinat ibi esse Corpus Christi, nisi per 
aliquam contrariam mutationem ejus 
quod prius convertebatur in Corpus 
Christi... . Quamdiu species non 


mutantur, nullo modo desinit esse Cor- 
pus Christi.—Vid. etiam Dist. xii. q. 
1. art. 2; ubi supr. fol. 62.—Quamdiu 
species manent, et Corpus Christi ma- 
net sub sacramento.—(fursus: fol. 
63.) Constat, quod Corpus Christi ma- 
net, quamdiu illa accidentia manent: 
illa autem accidentia non corrumpun- 
tur aliter quam ut corrumperetur sub- 
stantia panis et vini. |—Brulif. in iv. 
dist. xiii. q. 5. [scil. Stephan. Brulif. 
in lib. iv. Sententiarum Seraphici Doc- 
toris Bonaventure, (ed. 8yvo. Basil. 
1507,) in loco.—Nullum autem pre 
manibus nostris hujus operis est exem- 
plar. | 

f Greg. Papa. XI. [ Vid. supr. cap. 
vi, num. ii. | 

g Soto, in iv. dist. xii. q. i. a. 3. 
[ Vid. Dominici Soto Comm. in iv. sen- 
tent., ed. Duaci, 1613, pp. 282, 283. ] 
—Vasq. in 111, disp. 195. cap. 5. [ut 
supr. cap. vi. num. 11, |—Direct. Inquis. 
p. i. n. 15; et p. ii. g. 10:[ut'supr.; 
ibid. | 


CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTLE. 133 


tiam sacerdote uno, demittente vero altero? Et nescio quot CAP. 
alize eos spinose questiones exercuerunt ; circa quas ita tota pa 
schola languet, et in tantas angustias conjecta est, ut ex 115 

nullo modo se expedire possit. Et quidem rei Christiane 
plurimum profuisset, si, ut antiqui patres “rem transubstan- 
tiationis non attigerunt,” ita posteri nequidem de nomine 

ejus unquam inaudiissent. Deus enim fecit sacramentum 

Suum “rectum et simplex,” (sicut et “hominem ;”) “ ipsi Eccl. vii. 
vero” (scholastici et transubstantiatores) “illud infinitis mis- * ™* 
cuerunt inventionibus.” 

XXV. Porro, ipsa hec transubstantiatio hominibus impiis Hostie 

et flagitiosis occasionem prebuit Corpus, quod vocabant et ἘῸΝ 
credebant esse Corpus Christi, diris et indignis modis trac- Turcis, 
tandi. Neque enim desunt exempla malorum quorundam pach 
sacerdotum, qui hostias suas consecratas Judzis et sortilegis 
(a quibus vel confossz, vel crematz, vel ad magicas incan- 
tationes peragendas adhibitze sunt) turpi lucro dediti vendi- 
dere. Quin et Turcis aliquando, atque Saracenis®, eandem 
“hostiam ecclesiastico ritu sacratam,” in “pignus” fidei et 
“yacis’” civilis “observande,” “ profano” quidem “ consilio,” 
ab ipso etiam sancto Ludovico ““‘traditam esse’’ legimus. 
Quis vero, qui talia abominanda esse intelligit, sibi persua- 
dere aut credere possit, Christum Dominum in Sua Ecclesia 
sanctissimi Sui Corporis ejusmodi presentiam voluisse insti- 
tuere, per quam Ipse, vel Suum Corpus, posset in manus infi- 
delium Judzorum et Turcarum tradi, in ventres brutorum 
canum et murium ingeri, per vomitum et secessum ejici, in 
ignem, lutum, sterquilinia, et latrinas conjici, denique sorti- 
legiis et incantationibus adhiberi? Taceo cetera; nam et 
heec horresco referens. 

XXVI. Mirum igitur non est, si per istam novam Inno- 
eentii III.i doctrine formulam (adeo feedis absurditatibus 
tetrisque facinoribus obnoxiam) “ paucis” hujus sculi homi- 
nibus “ persuasum fuerit,” (quod de sua ztate scribit Rober- 
tus Holkot*, qui inter nostrates sub medium seculi XIV. A.D.1350. 
vixit,) “Corpus Christi esse realiter” (aut transubstantialiter) 


h Leuncl. de Reb. Ture. n.116.[Vid. “ Laterane’’ in MS. Dunelm.] 


Pandect. Hist. Ture. ὃ exvi.; ap. Jo- k In iv. q. 8. [Vid. Robert. Holkot, 
annis Leunclavii Annales Sultanorum, _ lib. iv. super Sent. quest. iii. lit. (Ὁ, Re- 
&c., ed. Francof. 1596, p. 162. | solut. quest.; ed. (black letter,) Lugd. 


i Pro “Innoeentii III.” legitur 1497, 5. p.] 


σλερὺ 
Vill: 


1Ut supra, 
Num. 
XXly. 


A.D.1371. 


184 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


“in sacramento Altaris.” 


Attamen testatur ipse Thomas 


Aquinas, quosdam sui etiam temporis credidisse', ‘ quod, 
facta consecratione, non solum remaneant accidentia panis, 


sed forma ejus substantialis.” 


Albertus Magnus Thome 


preceptor, qui non admodum diu post Innocentium III. 
scripsit, de transubstautiatione tamen, tanquam de re tantum 


problematica, loquitur. 


Quin a pluribus diserte illam im- 


pugnatam et rejectam esse, nulli est dubium. Nondum 
enim Tridentinum anathema decreto Laterano succenturi- 


atum erat. 


XXVII. Reliqui vero scholastici, (preesertim recentiores,) 
gui in verba Innocentii pape juraverunt, satis equidem mag- 
nifice, sed parum solide, et Christum Dominum summa affici- 
entes injuria, in hunc modum solent procedere: ™Communis 
opinio “ tenenda est, non propter aliquam rationem, . . 


sed propter determinationem” poutificis Romani. 


Item": 


** Principaliter videtur movere, quod de sacramentis tenen- 
dum est, sicut tenet sancta Romana Ecclesia.” “ Nunc autem 
ipsa tenet panem transubstantiari in Corpus, et vinum in 
Sanguinem ;” “sicut manifeste habetur, Extra, de Fide et 


summa Trinitate, c. Firmiter.’ 


sarlo.. 


. pauem converti in Corpus Christi. 


Rursus®: “ Probo . . neces- 
Nam oportet 


declarationem fidei tenere, quam Romanus pontifex tenendam 
declarat.” Ita apud pontificios, modo lubeat arroganti pape, 
qualis erat Innocentius III, dogmata fidei, 5. Scripturis? 
quantumvis contraria et prisce Ecclesiz inaudita, et ‘ex qui- 
bus talia deducuntur, et quidem necessario deducuntur, que 
Christo ac Christian’ Religione et Fide indigna sunt, subinde 


crescunt et augentur. 


Nam post Innocentium ITI. accrevit 


fidei Romane, per determinationem! pontificis Gregorii XI., 


1 [In] iii. g. 75. a. 6. [Vid. Thom. 
Aquin. Sum. Theol., par. iii. de Sacram. 
quest. xvi. (al. 75.) art. 6.§ Resp. Di- 
cendum. | 

m Th. Argent. in iv. d. xi. q. 1. art. 
2. [Comment. in iv. libr. Sent., ed. 
Gen. 1585, fol. 97.—Jam dictam igitur 
conversionem teneo, non propter ali- 
quam rationem cogentem, sed propter 
sanctorum auctoritatem et sanctz ma- 
tris Eeclesie determinationem . 
Quod etiam istud determinatum sit per 
Romanam ecclesiam, hoc patet, Extra, 
de Sum. Trin. et Fide Cathol., ‘ Fir- 


miter credimus.’ | 

n Scot. in iv. dist. xi. q. 3. [scil. Jo- 
annis Duns Scoti Comm. in lib. iv. 
Sent. dist. xi. quest. 3. ὃ Quantum 
ergo.—Op., ed. Lugd. 1639, tom. viii. 
p- 616. ] 

° Bacon, in iy. dist. viii. q. 1. a. 2. 
{arg. 1.—Vid. Joan. Baconis Angli 
Carmelite libr. iii. et iv. Sent., ed. 
Cremone, 1618, p. 360.] 

Ρ' Pro. fS.Scripturis' see 
dita,’—MS. Dunelm. legit: 
quin imperscrutabilia.”’ ] 


. inau- 
* alio- 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIA. 135 


quod Corpus Christi in yentrem muris descendit, et in CAP. 
cloaci, aliisque foedis locis hospitatur, si consecratam hos- ae 
tiam eo deferri contingat. 

XXVIII. Seculo XV., Constantiensis synodus (que ausu Synodus 
sacrilego calicem sacramentalem plebi et sacerdotibus non eee 
conficientibus abstulit) Wiclefium jam mortuum immerito A.D.1415. 
condemnayit, eo quod inter alia cum antiquis docuerit4, “ sub- 
stantiam panis et vini in sacramento Altaris materialiter 
remanere,” “ accidentia” vero “ panis” et vini “ absque sub- 
jecto in eodem sacramento non manere:” que due asser- 


tiones sunt verissimez. 


XXIX. Cardinalis Cameracensis, qui tempore concilii Card. Ca- 
Constantiensis floruit, ne quidem decretum pontificis Inno- 
centii, tanquam KEcclesiz determinationem, admittere vi- 1420. 


detur. 


Fatetur™ enim, de persistentia panis, quod “ est 


possibilis, nec repugnat rationi, nec auctoritati Biblie :” de 


conversione vero panis scribit, quod “ evidenter ex Scriptura 


meracen- 


sis, A.D. 


non sequitur, nec etiam videris meo! ex determinatione 1 Hxc 


Keclesiz.” Quia tamen communis opinio ei favebat, ideo, pis 
tempori cedens, illam quasi renitente animo sequebatur. verba. 


XXX. Que ex intervallo successit, Synodus Florentina de Synodus 


transubstantiatione et consecratione Eucharistiz cum Grecis 


Floren- 
tina, A.D. 


nihil egit, sed inter alias bene multas dissensiones eam in 1489. 


medio reliquit. 


(et, ut concilii generalis Florentini decretum, citatur a 


Sotot, catechismo Romano", et Bellarmino Cardinale*, tum 
in hic causé, tum in omnibus fere controversiis,) decretum 
concilii non est (sicut alias demonstravimus’,) sed ementitum 


4 [Vid. Sess. viiiJoannis Wicleff. 
art. 1, 2.—Labbe, Concil., tom. xii. 
col. 45. |] 

r In iv. q. vi. a. 2. [Vid. Petri de 
Alliaco, Card. Camerac., Comm. in lib. 
iv. Sent., ed. 8vo. (black letter, ) Par., 5. 
a. fol. 265.] 

s [“videre.”’—Imo etiam sic legit 
MS. Dunelm., apud quod super hac 
voce ‘‘videre’’ notatum est margine: 
* Quid sig.” Ibi autem non legitur: 
** Hee sunt Cardinalis verba.” | 

Σ Vuoiv. dist. x1. q. J. art. 2. \[ Vad. 
Dominici Soto Comm. in iv. Sent., ed. 
Duaci, 1613, p. 261.—Et tandem in 
concilio Florentino decretum est for- 
mam hujus sacramenti esse verba Sal- 


vatoris, &c. | 

Ὁ Par. 11. cap. iv. num. 18. [ὃ 19.— 
Vid. Catechism. ex decreto s.s. cone. 
Trid. jussu Pii V, Pont. Max. edit., ed. 
8vo. Par. 1635, p. 295.—Et concilii 
Florentini decretum, quod omnibus 
patet, &c. ] 

* De Euch,, lib. iv. cap. xiii. sect. 
Est igitur. [§ Quarta ratio.—Op., ed. 
Ingolst. 1601, tom. 111. col. 834.—Ha- 
betur etiam in concilio Florentino, in 
Instructione Armenorum. ]—Et alibi 
spe. 

y In Hist. Eccles. de Can. Script. 
num. clviii. [Vid. Joan. Cosini op., 
etiam nunc typis tandem nostris edit. 
Oxonii, 1849, tom. iii. p. 242.] 


Instructio vero, que dicitur Armeniorum, Instructio 


ad Arme- 
nios. 


CoAgE: 


WALK 


1 [ “ eon- 
scripsit.”’ 


—MSS.] 


196 DE SACRIS SYMBOLIS ET SPIRITUALI MANDUCATIONE 


potius et commentitium decretum solius Eugenii IV. ponti- 
ficis Romani; qui quidem in eidem instructione Armeniis 
prescribit formam hujus sacramenti, et “ virtute verborum 
Christi” ait “substantiam panis converti in Corpus, et sub- 
stantiam vini in Sanguinem Hjus:” sed, quod hoe fecit 
approbante concilio Florentino, (quemadmodum in hoc suo 
decreto ab ipso Eugenio dictum est, et szepius dictum,) falsi 
omnino conyincitur, tum ex Actis concilii, tum ex invictis 
argumentis C. de Capite Fontium, archiepiscopi Cesariensis, 
in libro illo” quem ‘ De necessarii theologiz scholasticz cor- 
rectione’ conscriptum Sixto V. papz dicavit.1 Nam quo- 
modo poterat concilium Florentinum decretum id approbare, 
quod tribus integris et plus eo mensibus post finitum con- 
cilium factum est? Constat siquidem®*, concilio jam finito, 
Armenios una cum Grecis, subscriptis ab utraque parte 
literis unionis, (que tamen nec ab omnibus admissa est, nec 
rata deinceps diu perseveravit,) Florentia discessisse die 
mensis Julii XXII.: Instructio autem data est decimo 
calendarum Decembris, hoc est, mensis Novembris die XXII. 
Igitur, ex consensu partium, nihil hic de transubstantiatione 
actum, aut de ceteris nove fidei Romane articulis in ea- 
dem instructione contentis decretum est. Sed fucum fecit 
lectori suo Eugenius, aut quicunque tandem sub illius no- 
mine decretum illud fabricavit'. Forte factum hoc viderat 
ille ab Innocentio IIL., sive Gregorio IX., im larvatis illis 
concilii Lateranensis decretis, que ejusdem concilii non erant, 
sed solum pontificis Romani decreta. Certe Eugenio, talia 
prescribenti, animo suo tantummodo morem gerere pro- 
positum fuisse verisimilius est, quam eum sperare potuisse, 
ut, se jubente, pro imperio ista ab Armenis, potius quam 
a Grecis, quibus instructio data non est, admitterentur. 
Usque enim hodie Armeni “in sacramento Eucharistiz ele- 
menta” panis et vini “ naturas suas amittere negant?.” 


. . Ita finem habuit 


z C. de Capite Fontium, de necess. 
correct. Schol. Theol., fol. 51, 53, 56; 
[ap. Christopheri de Cap. Font. Var. 
Tractat. et Disputat., ed. 8vo. Par. 
1586.—False concilio Florentino im- 
ponunt id, quod nunquam a dicto con- 
cilio Florentino determinatum est. } 

a Ex Actis cone. Flor. [ Vid. Labbe, 
tom. xiii. col. 518, 527.—Datum Flo- 
rentie, &c., . .. ann. 1439, pridie no- 


nas Julii, &e. . 
totum negotium sanctz unionis.... 
His dictis recesserunt Armenii: nos 
vero, Florentia exeuntes, Venetias pe- 
tivimus.—Conf. Decret. Eugenii Pape 
IV., ibid. col. 540.—Datum Florentiz 
. anno Domini millesimo quadrin- 
gentesimo trigesimo nono, decimo Ka- 

lendas Decembris; ὅσο. ] 
> Joh. Lasic. de Relig. Armeniorum. 





CORPORIS CHRISTI IN SACRAMENTO EUCHARISTIZ. 197 


XXXI. Ex his’a quovis, qui ‘animum adverterit, facile 
observari potest transubstantiationis dogma novum esse; 
cunctis Scripture Sacre et venerande antiquitatis presidiis 
destitutum ; ex nonnullis obiter veterum dictis perperam in- 
tellectis, circa sceculi XIJ. medium, primo confictum ; ante 
annum a Christo MCCXYV. nullo decreto ecclesiastico, ne 
pontificio quidem, confirmatum; post, hic illic in Ecclesia 
tantum Romana receptum ; variis disputationibus in schola 
ventilatum ; tetris consequentiis obnoxium; a multiis pre- 
stantissimis viris (nunquam enim defuerunt qui contra- 
dicerent) repudiatum: donec in sacrilego illo Constantiensi 
concilio susceptum; anno demum MDLI. in conciliabulo 
Tridentino’, ab episcopis non adeo multis, iisque tantum 
Latinis, et sedis Romane mancipiis, aliis omnibus sub ana- 
themate (nulli formidando) definitum; et praecepto papali® 
(diro quidem, sed iniquissimo,) late nimis disseminatum. 
Cui non est cur fidem aut assensum prebeamus, priusquam 
demonstratum fuerit, vel Corpus Christi, nisi conversa in 
Ipsum substantid panis, prasens exhiberi non posse, vel 
verbis Christi veritatem aliter non constare: quod nunquam 
fiet in eeternum. 


ΓΝ τα. Joannis Lasicii (Lasitzki) Po- ¢ Synodus Tridentina, sess. xiii. 
Jani tract. de relig. Armen.,ap. Micha- [Vid. can. ii—Labbe, tom. xiv. col. 
lonis Lituani Hist. de moribus Tarta- 808. 

rorum, Lituanorum, &ec., ed. Basil. 4 Bulla Pii IV. de Profess. Fidei. 
1615, p. 59. ] [ Ibid. col. 945. | 


CAP. 


ΜΕ 





; INDEX LOCORUM 5. SCRIPTURA QUI 
IN HOC LIBRO CITANTUR. 


Ἐ ΣΟΙ: πα: 11.291. : 
Eeel. vii. ult. 

S. Matt. xxvi. 26 
S. Lue. xxii. 19 
S. Joh. iii. 3 

S. Joh. iii. 29 

S. Joh. vi. 55 
Rom. xii. 2 

1 Cor. iv. 15 

ἐπ Cor =: 16 

1 Cor. x. 3, 4 
Gal. vi. 15 

Eph. iv. 22 

1 Pet. i. 3 

Jude Ep. v. 3 


Cap. 


— 


I. Nom. iv. 
VII. — xxiv. 
ΠΡ — i. 
ibid. ibid. 
VI. — vii. 
Valle -- Οχιχ. 
I. — 1. 
VI. — vii. 
ibid. ibid. 
li — ii 
ibid. - — [iv.] 
VI. — vii. 
ibid. ibid. 
ibid. ibid. 


In Prefat.? 


INDEX ANTIQUORUM PATRUM. 


Secuto I. 
Clemens Romanus : Cap. 
S. Ignatius : . 

Secuto IL. 
Theoph. Antioch. Cap 


Justinus Martyr 
33 3) 
Athenagoras 
Tatianus 
Trenzus 


2? ” . 


* [Haud in Joannis Durelli prx- 
fatione, sub hujus initium libri ty- 
pis impressa, sancti Jude citata 
sunt verba ; in procemio autem im- 


VI. Num.i. 
ibid. — x. 

VI. Num. i. 

Vie ΞΕ Ἀν 
Vivo =x 
ibid. — 1. 

Vi — Viil. 
VI. — vy., vil. 


perfecto, nune primum publici juris 
facto, manu Cosini scripta, apud 
codicem leguntur Dunelmensem. } 


140 


Tertullianus 
39 3) 

Origenes 

3} ” 
Cyprianus 

393 393 
Clem. Alex. 
Minut. Felix 
Arnobius 


Euseb. Cesar. 
Athanasius 
Cyril. Hier. 

3} 39 
Juvencus 
Macarius 
Hilarius 
Optatus 
Euseb. Emiss. 
Greg. Naz, 
Cyril. Alex. 
Epiphanius 
Hieronymus 
Theoph. Alex, 
Gaudentius 
S. Basil. 

3) 39 
Greg. Nyss. 

is 39 
Ambrosius 

33 39 


Chrysostomus 


37) ” 


S. Augustinus 


Prosper [ III. om.]. 


Leo [IV. om. | 
Theodoretus 
3) ” 
Gelasius 
Sedulius 
Gennadius 
Faustus Reg. 


Ephremus 
Facundus 
Fulgentius 


Srcuto III. 


SecuLo IV. 


——~-—_—_—_— ἢ 


SEcuLo V. 


Secuto VI. 


INDEX ANTIQUORUM PATRUM. 


Carp. V. Num.ix. 

— VI — Vii. 

— Vz. — x 

— VI. — v., Vil. 

— Vz. — xi. 

— VI. — Viil., viii.,xiil. 
ibid. — 1., vil. 
ibid. ibid. 

— Vz. — XXXV. 

Cap. VI. Num. i. 

— Vz. — xiii. 
ibid. — Xiv. 

— VI — v., Vii 
ihid. — 1. 
ibid. — _ ν., Vil 
ibid. — Vi. 

— Vz. — Xv. 

— VIL — vi. 

— Vz. — xvi. 

— VI — Vii. 

— Vz. — xvi. 

— VI. — Vi., Vil., xiil. 

— Vz. — XvVlil. 

— VI. — vi, vil., viii. 

Car. V. Num. xix. 
ibid. — xXx. 

— [VL] — [viii] 

— Vz. — XXi. 

— VI — xi. 

— Vz. — χχῖϊ. 

= Wi) Se 
ibid. — vii. 

Car. V. Nom. xxiv. 
ibid. — Χχν 

— VI. — ii 


INDEX ANTIQUORUM PATRUM. 


141 


Victor Antioch. 5 
Primasius 5 ᾿ Cap. VI. Nom. i. 
Procop. Gaz. . 
Secuto VII. 
Isidorus Hisp. . Car. V. Num. xxvi. 
Hesychius — VI. — iit. 
Maximus ibid. — 1. 
Secuto VIII. 
Ven. Beda Cap. V. Num. xxvii. 
Car. Magnus ibid. — Xxyilil. 
Damascenus Vibes "5 I 
Secu.to IX. 
Paschasius Car. V. Num. xxix. 
Amalarius ibid. — XXX. 
Rabanus Maurus ibid. — ΧΧΧΙ. 
Joh. Erigena ibid. — XXxXIii. 
Wal. Strabo ibid. — Xxxiil. 
Bertramus 3 ibid. — XXxXiv. 
Niceph, Patr. ‘ 
Hincmarus Sle Bees 
SEcuLo X. 
Herigerus Car. V. Num. xxxvi. 
Fulbertus : — VI — i. 
Secuto XI. 
Idem Fulbertus Cap. VII. Nom. iii. 
Berengarius ibid. — _ ivV.,V.,Vi.,vil., 
viil., δὲς, 
Hildebertus ibid. — iv. 
Theophylactus μὰ 
CEcumenius - τον =e 
Secuto XII. 
Bernardus Cap. VII. Num. xiii. 
” 9 - ie —— ali 
Rupertus — VII. — xiv 
INDEX SCHOLASTICORUM. 
Secuto XIII. 
Lombardus Cap. VII. Num. xv. 
Alex. Alens. 5 ihid. — xxiy. 
” ” — VI. — ii. 
Albertus Magnus : - — VII. — xxvi. 


142 INDEX SCHOLASTICORUM. 


Tho. Aquinas : : . Car. VI. Nom.i 
” ” . . . -Ξ- Πρ - 
Rich. de Mediavilla . ᾿ : τι τ - 
SEcuLo ΧΙΥ, 
Scotus ὃ . 
Durandus ξ Ε ᾿ Cap. V. Num. 
Occamus 
Baconus ; : - — VII. — 
Holeotus : = > ibid. — 
Th. Argent. : ᾿ 5 ibid. — 
Brulifer . ; ibid. — 
SrecuLo XV. 
Card. Camerac. . 5 ὦ ΟΑΡ.. Νυκμ.]1 
» - . 5 ; — Vik — 
Gabriel Biel : : 5 ibid. 
StcuLo XVI, 
Cajetanus : ὃ . Cap. VIL. Num. 
Dom. Soto : ‘ : - ibid, — 
INDEX CONCILIORUM. 
Nicenum I. : ς . ὍΡΟΥ: ΝὺυΜ: 
Chalced. 3 : ᾿ ibid. --- 
Anecyranum 
Neocesarien. : : Ὶ 
Laodicenum 
Carthaginense 
Aurelianense : : \ — VI. — 
Toletanum IV. | 
Braccarense 
Toletanum VI. 
Constantinop. VI. . 
Brixiense 5 - : — VII. — 
Anglicanum : : - — V. -- 
ὦ τὸ : : 4 — VI. — 
Arelatense IIT, . : : ibid. 
Vercellense > Ξ ᾿ — VIL — 
Turonense ὃ : Wigs - 
Rom. sub Nic. II. Ξ . ibid. — 
Rom. sub Greg. VII. : : ibid. ---α 
Later. sub Inn, III. 3 : ibid. — 
Constantiense ° = 4 ibid. — 
Florentinum ὃ ibid. — 
Tridentinum : : β ibid. — 


ΧΙ. 
XXill. 


xii. 
XXXVI. 
li. 
ibid. 
Vil. 
Vill. 
be 
ΧΙ]. 
Xviil. 
EXViii. 
XXX. 
ΧΧΧΙ. 


INDEX PONTIFICUM ROMANORUM, 


143 


INDEX PONTIFICUM ROMANORUM. 


Leo IX. . 
Victor Ii. 
Nicol. 11. 
Greg. VII. 
Innoe. III. 


Greg. IX. 
Greg. XI. 
Eugenius TV. 
Pius LV. 


3) 33 


Photius 
Trithemius 
Malmesbury 

33 3} 
Antoninus 
Vincentius 

> 3) 
- Sigebert . 

ἋΣ νυ 
Thevet . 
P. Masson 
M. Paris 
M. Westm. 
Baronius 
Sigonius 
Chron. Cassin. 
Engilb. Trevir. 
Bertold. Const. 


INDEX 


Benno Cardinal. 


Abbas Ursperg. 


Otho Frisingen. 


Platina . 
Th. Walsingh. 


Discip. de temp. . 
Czsarius Monach. 


Leunclavius 
Lasicius 


Car. VII. Num. 


ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 


IV. 
VIL. 
ΜΙ: 
ὙΠ 
ibid. 
Ve 


HISTORICORUM. 


. 


, Cap. V. Num. 


ibid. 
ibid. 
ΥΙΙ. 
—  Υ. 
ibid, 
VII. 
— Vz. 
VII. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 


ibid. 


ibid. 
ibid, 


ibid. 


ibid. 
ibid. 


Vii. 

viil. 

ibe 

xii. 

Xviil., xix., 

ἘΣ, XX. 

Vil. 

XXiV., XXVil, 


XXIV. 

00.4 

KKK, ΧΧΧΙΙ. 
ἵν: Viles Xie 
ΧΧΧΙΙ. 

ibid. 

xii. 

XXXVi. 


XXii. 


XXV. 
XXX. 


144 


INDEX CONFESSIONUM ECCLES. 


Anglie. 
Augustana 

Saxon. 
Wittemberg. 
Bohem. . 

Polon. . ° 
Argentin. et Basil. 
Gallic. 

Belgica . 


Helvetica prior, et posterior. . 


INDEX 


Lutherus 

Bucerus . 

Zuinglius 

Cicolamp. 

Poinetus . 

Juellus 

Bilsonus 

Andreas 

Jacob. Rex 
Hookerus ὃ 
Joh. Episcopus Roffen. 
Montacutius ὦ 
Armachanus 

France. Epise. Elien. 
Laudus . δ 
Overalius . 
Antonius de Dominis 
Calvinus ; 
Colloq. Ratisb. 


INDEX CONFESS. ECCLES. 


—-— . 


ATARUM. 


Car. II. 


ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
5 ibid. 
. ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 


ATARUM. 


Cap. II. 


: ἐ ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
ibid. 


ibid, 


ibid. 


REFORMATARUM. 


REFORM- 


Nom. iil. 


Num. 


Da 

Xil., SK 
xiii. 

Xiv., XV. 
Xvi. 

XVii., XViil. 


SCRIPTORUM ECCLES. REFORM- 


ΧΙ. 


ibid. 


ibid. 


vil. 
Ks 
XXli. 


INDEX SCRIPTORUM PONTIFICIORUM. 


INDEX SCRIPTORUM PONTIFICIORUM. 


Bellarm. 


Salmeron 
Toletus . 
Roffensis 
Perron. . 
Possevin. 

” ” 
Steph. Gard. 
Greg. de Valen. 
Prefat. in Theodor. 
Sirmondus 
Tho. Walden. 


Index libr. prohib., 
Indices expurg. 
Sixt. Sen. 
Vasquez 


R53. 43 


Direct. Inquisit. 


” ” 
Alph. a Castro 
Discurs. de Jesuitis 
Watsoni Quodlibeta 
Garetius 
Alanus . 
Lanfrancus 
Guitmundus 
P. Blesensis 
Steph. Eduensis 
Gerson . : 
Catechism. Trid. . 
De Capite Fontium 
Algerus . : 
Gratiani Glossator 


COSIN. 


Cap. III. Num. i., ii. 


— IV. 
— Vz. 


Vil. 
ili., V., XVili., 
XXi., Xxii. 
bole val pis op 
xvii. 

χν, ἈΧΊΙΣ, 
5°99. 

Vii. 

ibid. 

ili. 

ΧΙ]. 

XViil., XXXV. 

xvii. 

Xvlil. 

XXi. 

ibid. 

XXV. 


Xi. 
XXiy. 
XVii. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
iv. 
ibid. 
Vi, iVil. 52 Xo 
mah 
XVii. 
ibid. 
Xxii. 
XXX. 
ibid. 
XXiv, 
x 





THE 


ἘΠῚ POR Y 


Gr EO Piss 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION: 


To which is Premifed and Oppofed 


THe CatTHotick DoctTRIN 
OF THE 
HOLY ΘΟ ΙΗ 


The ancient Fathers and the Reformed Churches, 
About the Sacred Elements, and Prefence of 
CHRIST in the Bleffed 


Sacrament of the Euchart/t. 





Written Nineteen years ago in Latine 


By the Right Reverend Father in GOD, 


JOHN, 


Late Lord Bishop of DURHAM, 


And allowed by him to be publifhed a little before 
his Death, at the earneft requeft of his Friends. 





LONDON, 


Printed by Andrew Clark for Henry Brome at the 
Gun at the Weft end of S. Paul’s, 1676. 





TO THE 


RIGHT HONOURABLE 


HENEAGE LORD FINCH, 


BARON OF DAVENTRY, LORD KEEPER OF THE GREAT 


SEAL OF ENGLAND. 


MY LORD, 


Tue excellency of this book answers the greatness of its author, 
and perhaps the badness of the version is also proportioned to the 
meanness of the translator: but the English being for those that 
ceuld not understand the original, that they also might be instructed 
by so instructive a discourse, I hope with them my good intent will 
excuse my fault ; only my fear is, I shall want a good plea where- 
with to sue out my pardon for having intituled a person of the 
highest honour to so poor a labour as is this of mine. 

My lord, these were the inducements which set me upon this 
attempt, it being the subject of the book to clear and assert an 
important truth, which is as a criterion whereby to know the sons of 
the Church of England from her adversaries on both hands;—those 
that adore, and those that profane the blessed Sacrament; these 
that destroy the visible sign, and those that deny the invisible 
Grace: I thought I might justly offer it to so pious and so great 
a son of this Church, who owned her in her most calamitous 
condition, and defends her in her happy and most envied restoration. 
I was also persuaded that the translation, bearing your illustrious 
name, would be thereby much recommended to many, and so become 
the more generally useful: and I confided much in your goodness 
and affability, who, being by birth and merits raised to a high 
eminency, yet do willingly condescend to things and persons of low 
estate. 

My lord, I have only this one thing more to allege for myself,— 
that, besides the attestation of public fame, which I hear of a long 
time speaking loud for you, I have these many years lived in a 
family where your virtues being particularly known are particularly 


150 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 


admired and honoured; so that I could not but have an extraor- 
dinary respect and veneration for your lordship, and be glad to have 


any occasion to express it. If these cannot clear me, I must remain 


guilty of having taken this opportunity of declaring myself 
} Your Lordship’s 
Most humble and most obedient Servant, 
LUKE DE BEAULIEU. 





THE 


PUBLISHER TO THE READER. 


It is now nineteen, years since this historical treatise was made by 
the Right Reverend Father in God, John Cosin, when (in the time of 
the late accursed rebellion) he was an exile in Paris for his loyalty 
and religion’s sake; for, being then commanded to remain in that 
city by his gracious Majesty that now is, (who was departing into 
Germany by reason of a league newly made by the French king 
with our wicked rebels,) he was also ordered by him, as he had been 
before by his blessed father, Charles the First, a prince never enough 
to be commended, to perform divine offices in the royal chapel, and 
to endeavour to keep and confirm in the protestant religion, pro- 
fessed by the Church of England, his fellow exiles, both of the royal 
family and others his countrymen who then lived in that place. 
Now the occasion of his writing this piece was this :—When his gra- 
cious Majesty had chosen Cologne for the place of his residence, 
being solemnly invited, he visited a neighbouring potent prince of 
the empire, of the Roman persuasion; where it fell out, as it doth 
usually where persons of different religions do meet: some Jesuits 
began to discourse of controversies with those noblemen and worthies, 
who never forsook their prince in his greatest straits, but were his 
constant attendants, and imitators of his ever-constant profession of 
the reformed religion,—charging the Church of England with heresy, 
especially in what concerns the blessed sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper. They would have it that our Church holds no real, but 
only a kind of imaginary, presence of the Body and Blood of Christ ; 
but that the Church of Rome retained still the very same faith con- 
cerning this sacred mystery which the Catholic Church constantly 
maintained in all ages; to wit, that the whole substance of the 
bread and wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood 
of Christ, and right well called Transubstantiation by the Council of 
Trent. This, and much more to the same purpose, was pronounced 


152 TO THE READER. 


by the Jesuits, in presence of his majesty and the German prince, 
with as much positiveness and confidence as if it had been a clear 
and self-evident truth owned by all the learned. 

His sacred majesty and his noble attendants knew well enough 
that the Jesuits did shamelessly belie the Church of England, and 
that their brags about Roman transubstantiation were equally false 
and vain; but the German prince having recommended to the 
perusal of those honourable persons that followed the king a manu- 
script, wherein (as he said) was proved by authentic authors all that 
had been advanced by the Jesuits, they thought it fit to acquaint the 
Reverend Dr. Cosin with the whole business, and entreat him that 
he would vindicate the Church of England from the calumny, and 
plainly declare what is her avowed doctrine and belief about the true 
and real presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament. Hereupon our 
worthy doctor, who was ever ready and zealous to do good, espe- 
cially when it might benefit the Church of God, fell presently 
to work, and writ this excellent treatise as an answer to the prince’s 
manuscript, that, if those worthy persons pleased, they might repay 
his highness’s kindness in kind. Yet, notwithstanding the solicita- 
tions of those that occasioned it, and of others that had perused it, 
he would not yield to have it made public while a few months be- 
fore he died, because, having composed it for particular friends, he 
thought it sufficient that it had been useful to them. But, the con- 
troversy about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist being of late 
years resumed with much vigour, and even now famous by the learned 
and eloquent disputes of Monsieur Claude, minister of the reformed 
Church in Paris, and Monsieur Arnold, doctor of Sorbonne, and others, 
who, moved by their example, have entered the lists ; the reiterated 
and more earnest importunities of his friends obtained at last his 
consent for the publication of this work, and the rather, because he 
thought that the error constantly maintained by the famous doctor 
of Sorbonne was, by a lucky anticipation, clearly and strongly con- 
futed throughout this book: for, whatever the fathers have said 
about the true and real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in 
the sacrament, that stout Roman champion applies to his transub- 
stantiation, and then crows over his adversaries, supposing that he 
hath utterly overthrown the Protestants’ cause ; whereas there is 
such a wide difference as may be calleda great gulf fixed betwixt the 
true or real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and the transub- 
stantiation of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. This 
last is such a prodigy as is neither taught by Scripture nor possible 
to be apprehended by faith: it is repugnant to right reason, and 
contrary to sense, and is no where to be found in ancient writers. 


TO THE READER. 153 


But the other is agreeable to Scripture, and to the analogy of faith : 
it is not against reason, although, being spiritual, it cannot be per- 
ceived by our bodily senses ; and it is backed by the constant and 
unanimous doctrine of the holy fathers. For it makes nothing 
against it, that sometimes the same fathers do speak of the bread and 
wine of the holy Eucharist as of the very Body and Blood of Christ ; 
it being a manner of speech very proper and usual, in speaking of 
sacraments, to give to the sign the name of the thing signified. And, 
however, they explain themselves in other places, when they fre- 
quently enough call the sacramental bread and wine types, sym- 
bols, figures, and signs, of the Body and Blood of Christ, thereby de- 
claring openly for us against the maintainers of transubstantiation. 
For we may safely, without any prejudice to our tenet, use those 
expressions of the ancients which the papists think to be most favour- 
able to them, taking them in a sacramental sense, as they ought to 
be ; whereas the last mentioned, that are against them, none can use, 
but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of 
transubstantiation, it being altogether inconsistent to say the bread 
is substantially changed into the Body of Christ, and the bread is a 
figure, a sign, and a representation of the Body of Christ; for what 
hath lost its being can in no wise signify or represent any other 
thing: neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the 
figure and sign of itself. But this is more at large treated of in 
the book itself. 

Now, having given an account of the occasion of writing and pub- 
lishing this discourse, perhaps the reader will expect that I should 
say something of its excellent author: but, should 1 now undertake 
to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great - 
man, my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude, and 
I must be injurious both to him and my readers, being confined 
within the narrow limits of a preface. But what cannot be done 
here may be done somewhere else, God willing. This only I would 
not have the reader to be ignorant of, that this learned man, and (as 
appears by this) constant professor and defender of the protestant 
religion, was one of those who was most vehemently accused of 
popery by the presbyterians before the late wars, and for that reason 
bitterly persecuted by them, and forced to forsake his country ; 
whereby he secured himself from the violence of their hands, but 
not of their tongues: for still the good men kept up the noise of their 
clamorous accusation, even while he was writing this most substantial 
treatise against transubstantiation. 


JOHN DUREL, 





ἐξ 


CHAPSI. 


1. THE REAL, THAT IS, TRUE AND NOT IMAGINARY PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE 
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER IS PROVED BY SCRIPTURE. 2 AND 3. YET 
THIS FAVOURS NOT THE TENET OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, BEING IT IS NOT TO 
BE UNDERSTOOD GROSSLY AND CARNALLY, BUT SPIRITUALLY AND SACRA- 


MENTALLY. 4. THE NATURE AND USE OF THE SACRAMENTS. ὁ. BY MEANS 
OF THE ELEMENTS OF BREAD AND WINE, CHRIST HIMSELF IS SPIRITUALLY 
EATEN BY THE FAITHFUL IN THE SACRAMENT. 6. THE EATING AND PRE- 
SENCE BEING SPIRITUAL ARE NOT DESTRUCTIVE OF THE TRUTH AND SUB- 
STANCE OF THE THING. 7. THE MANNER OF PRESENCE IS UNSEARCHABLE, 
AND OUGHT NOT TO BE PRESUMPTUOUSLY DEFINED. ἢ 


1. THosE words which our blessed Saviour used in the institution C H A P. 
of the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, ‘‘ This is my Body, which ne a 
is given for you: This is my Blood, which is shed for you, for the Mat. xxvi. 
Saae - i 26; Luke 

remission of sins,’ are held and acknowledged by the universal xxii. 19. 
Church to be most true and infallible: and, if any one dares oppose 
them, or call in question Christ’s veracity, or the truth of His words, 
or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them, except he be allowed 
to make a mere figment or a bare figure of them, we cannot, and 
ought not, either excuse or suffer him in our churches; for we must 
embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by 
divine Scripture. And therefore we can as little doubt of what 
Christ saith, “‘ My Flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink John vi. 
indeed ;” which, according to S. Paul, are both given to us by the 55. 
consecrated elements. For he calls the bread ‘the communion ! Cor. x. 
of Christ’s Body,” and the cup “the communion of His Blood.” a6. 

2. Hence it is most evident that the bread and wine (which, ΄ 
according to S. Paul, are the elements of the holy Eucharist) 
are neither changed as to their substance, nor vanished, nor reduced 
to nothing; but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ, 
that by them His blessed Body and Blood may be communicated 
to us. 


» As 6. Calixtus writes in some Con. Trid. atque in Locis Theol. [For 
place of his learned Exercitations; and the verification of the notes, see the 
before him M. Chemnitius, in Exam. Latin. | 


156 THE HISTORY 


CHAP. 8. And further it appears from the same words, that the expres- 
Ξ sion of Christ and the apostle is to be understood in a sacramental 
and mystic sense; and that no gross and carnal presence of Body | 
and Blood can be maintained by them. 

4. And, though the word sacrament be no where used in Scripture 
to signify the blessed Eucharist, yet the Christian Church, ever since 
its primitive ages, hath given it that name, and always called the 
presence of Christ’s Body and Blood therein mystic and sacramental. 
Now a sacramental expression doth, without any inconvenience, give 

Exod. xii. to the sign the name of the thing signified. And such is as well 

21; 1 Cor. . 

x. 3,4, the usual way of speaking, as the nature of sacraments, that not 
only the names, but even the properties and effects of what 
they represent and exhibit, are given to the outward elements. 
Hence (as I said before) the bread is as clearly as positively called 
by the apostle, ‘‘ the communion of the Body of Christ.” 

5. This also seems. very plain, that our blessed Saviour’s design 
was not so much to teach what the elements of bread and wine are 
by nature and substance, as what is their use and office and signifi- 
cation in this mystery. For the Body and Blood of our Saviour are 
not only fitly represented by the elements, but also by virtue of His 
institution really offered to all by them, and so eaten by the faithful 

John vi. mystically and sacramentally ; whence it is, that “He truly is and 

ou abides in us, and we in Him.” 

6. This is the spiritual (and yet no less true and undoubted than 
if it were corporal) eating of Christ’s Flesh, not indeed simply as it is 
flesh, without any other respect, (for so it is not given, neither would 
it profit us,) but as it is crucified, and given for the redemption of 

Mat, xxvi. the world. Neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the 

20. thing, that this eating of Christ’s Body is spiritual, and that by it the 
souls of the faithful, and not their stomachs, are fed by the operation 
of the Holy Ghost: for this none can deny, but they who, being 
strangers to the Spirit and the divine virtue, can savour only carnal 
things, and to whom what is spiritual and sacramental is the same 
as if a mere nothing. 

7. As to the manner of the presence of the Body and Blood of our 
Lord in the blessed sacrament, we that are protestant and reformed 
according to the ancient Catholic Church, do not search into the~ 
manner of it with perplexing inquiries; but, after the example of the 
primitive and purest Church of Christ, we leave it to the power and 
wisdom of our Lord, yielding a full and unfeigned assent to His 
words. Had the Romish maintainers of transubstantiation done 
the same, they would not have determined and decreed, and then 
imposed as an article of faith absolutely necessary to salvation, 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 157 


a manner of presence newly by them invented, under pain of the C H AP. 
most direful curse ; and there would have been in the Church less I. 
wrangling, and more peace and unity, than now is. 


CHAP. IT. 


B 2 AND 3 SQ. THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL PROTESTANTS WITH THE 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN MAINTAINING A REAL, THAT IS, TRUE, BUT NOT A 
CARNAL, PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT, PROVED BY 
PUBLIC CONFESSIONS AND THE BEST OF AUTHORITIES, 


1. So then none of the Protestant Churches doubt of the real 
(that is, true and not imaginary) presence of Christ's Body and 
Blood in the sacrament ; and there appears no reason why any man 
should suspect their common confession of either fraud or error, 
as though in this particular they had in the least departed from 
the Catholic Faith. 

2. For it is easy to produce the consent of reformed Churches 
and authors, whereby it will clearly appear (to them that are not 
wilfully blind) that they all zealously maintain and profess this 
truth, without forsaking in any wise the true Catholic Faith in 
this matter. 

3. I begin with the Church of England; wherein they that are 
in holy orders are bound by a law and canon, “ Never to teach any 
thing to the people, to be by them believed in matters of religion, 
but what agrees with the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, 
and what the Catholic fathers and ancient prelates have gathered 
and inferred out of it, under pain of excommunication if they trans- 
gress, troubling the people with contrary doctrine>.” It teacheth, 
therefore, that ‘in the blessed sacrament the Body of Christ is 
given, taken, and eaten; so that to the worthy receivers the con- 
secrated and broken bread is the communication of the Body of 
Christ, and likewise the consecrated cup the communication of His 
Blood: but that the wicked, and they that approach unworthily the 
sacrament of so sacred a thing, eat and drink their own damnation, 
in that they become guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ®.” And 
the same Church, in a solemn prayer before the consecration, prays 
thus: ‘‘ Grant us, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son 


* In the book of Canons published by authority, anno 1571, ch. Of preach. 
© Artic. of Relig., 1562. 


158 THE HISTORY 


4 


CHAP. Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be 
1. made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most 
precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in Him, and He in 
us¢,” The priest also, blessing or consecrating the bread and wine, 
saith thus: ‘* Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech 
Thee, and grant that we receiving these Thy creatures of bread and 
wine, according to Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institu- 
tion, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of 
His most blessed Body and Blood: Who in the same night that He 
was betrayed took bread, and, when He had given thanks, He brake 
it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, Take, eat ; this is My Body, 
which is given for you: do this in remembrance of Me. Likewise 
after supper He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He 
gave it to them, saying, Drink yeall of this; for this is My Blood of 
the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the 
remission of sins: do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance 
of Me®*.” The same, when he gives the sacrament to the people 
kneeling, giving the bread, saith: ‘‘ The Body of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto 
everlasting life.”” Likewise, when he gives the cup, he saith: “ The 
Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve 
thy body and soul to everlasting life.” Afterwards, when the com- 
munion is done, follows a thanksgiving: ‘‘ Almighty and eyerliving 
God, we most heartily thank Thee for that Thou dost vouchsafe to 
feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiri- 
tual food of the most precious Body and Blood of Thy Son our Savi- 
our Jesus Christ ;” with the hymn, “‘ Glory be to God on high,” &c. 
Also, in the public authorized Catechism of our Church, appointed to 
be learned of all, it is answered to the question concerning the 
inward part of the sacrament, that “It is the Body and Blood of 
Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful 
in the Lord’s supper’.” And in the Apology for this Church, writ 
by that worthy and reverend prelate, Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, it is 
expressly affirmed, ‘“‘ That to the faithful is truly given in the sacra- 
ment the Body and Blood of our Lord, the life-giving Flesh of the 
Son of God, which quickens our souls, the bread that came from 
heaven, the food of immortality, grace, and truth, and life: and that 
it is the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, that we may 
abide in Him, and He in us; and that we may be ascertained, that 
the Flesh and Blood of Christ is the food of our souls, as bread and 
wine is of our bodies.” 


4 Comm. Service. e Ibid. f Church Catech. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 159 


4, Awhile before the writing of this Apology came forth the Dial- Cc HAP. 
lactic of the famous Dr. Poinet, bishop of Winchester, concerning the __1!- 
truth, nature, and substance, of the Body and Blood of Christ in the 
blessed sacrament, writ on purpose to explain and manifest the faith 
and doctrine of the Church of England in that point. In the first 
place it shews, “that the holy Eucharist is not only the figure, but 
also contains in itself the truth, nature, and substance, of the Body of 
our blessed Saviour; and that those words ‘ nature’ and ‘ substance’ 
ought not to be rejected, because the fathers used them in speaking 
of that mystery.” Secondly, he inquires whether those expressions, 
truth, nature, and substance, ‘“‘ were used in this mystery by the 
ancients in their common acceptation, or ina sense more particular 
and proper to the sacraments: because we must not only observe 
what words they used, but also what they meant to signify and to 
teach by them.” And though, with the fathers, he acknowledged a 
difference betwixt the Body of Christ in its natural form of a human 
body and that mystic Body present in the sacrament, yet he chose 
rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhi- 
bition, than in the subject itself, that is, the real Body and Blood of 
our Saviour; being it is most certain, that no other body is given to 
the faithful in the sacrament, than that which was by Christ given to 
death for their redemption. Lastly, he affirms, “ according to the 
unanimous consent of the fathers, that this matter must be under- 
stood in a spiritual sense, banishing all grosser and more carnal 
thoughts.” 

5. To Bishop Poinet succeeded in the same see the Right Reverend 
Doctors T. Bilson and L. Andrews, prelates both of them throughly 
learned, and great defenders of the primitive Faith; who made it 
most evident, by their printed writings, that the faith and doctrine 
of the Church of England is in all things agreeable to the holy 
Scriptures, and the divinity of the ancient fathers. And, as to what 
- regards this mystery, the first treats of it in his answer to the 
Apology of Cardinal Alan £, and the last in his answer to the Apology 
of Cardinal Bellarmine"; where you may find things worthy to be 
read and noted, as follows: “ Christ said, This is My Body : in this, 
the object, we are agreed with you; the manner only is contro- 
verted. We hold bya firm belief that it is the Body of Christ ; of 
the manner how it comes to be so, there is not a word in the 
Gospel ; and, because the Scripture is silent in this, we justly disown 
it to be a matter of faith. We may, indeed, rank it among tenets of 
the school, but by no means among the articles of our Christian 


5. Bils., Resp. ad Card. Alan.,]. iv. ἡ Andr., Resp. ad Apol. Bel., ο. ii. p. 11. 


160 THE HISTORY 


. belief. We like well of what Durandus is reported to have said: 


‘ We hear the word, and feel the motion; we know not the manner, 
and yet believe the presence :’ for we believe a real presence, no less 
than you do. We dare not be so bold as presumptuously to define 
any thing concerning the manner of a true presence; or, rather, we 
do not so much as trouble ourselves with being inquisitive about it ; 
no more than in Baptism, how the Blood of Christ washeth us ; or in 
the Incarnation of our Redeemer, how the Divine and human nature 
were united together: we put it in the number of sacred things or 
sacrifices, (the Eucharist itself being a sacred mystery,) whereof “the 
remnants ought to be consumed with fire,” that is, (as the fathers 
elegantly have it,) adored by faith, but not searched by reason.” 

6. To the same sense speaks Is. Casaubon, in the epistle he wrote 
by order from King James to Cardinal Perroni. So doth also 
Hooker, in his Ecciesiastical Polity (Book v. § 67); John bishop of 
Rochester, in his book Of the Power of the Popei; R. Mountague, 
bishop of Norwich, against Bullinger*® ; James primate of Armagh, 
in his answer to the Irish Jesuit; Francis bishop of Ely, and 
William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, in their answer to Fisher ; 
John Overall, bishop of Norwich!; and many others in the Church 
of England, who never departed from the faith and doctrine of the 
ancient Catholic fathers, which is by law established, and with great 
care and veneration received and preserved in our Church. 

7. To these also we may justly add that famous prelate, Antonio 
de Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, a man well versed in the sacred 
writings, and the records of antiquity; who, having left Italy, (when 
he could no longer remain in it, either with quiet or safety,) by the 
advice of his intimate friend, Paulus Venetus, took sanctuary under 
the protection of King James of blessed memory, in the bosom of 
the Church of England, which he did faithfully follow in all points 
and articles of religion. But, being daily vexed with many affronts 
and injuries, and wearied by the unjust persecutions of some sour 
and over-rigid men, who bitterly declaimed every where against his 
hfe and actions, he at last resolved to return into Italy with a safe 
conduct. Before he departed, he was, by order from the king, 
questioned by some commissionated bishops what he thought of 
the religion and Church of England, which for so many years 
he had owned and obeyed, and what he would say of it in the 
Roman court ? To this query he gave in writing this memorable 
answer: “1 am resolved, even withthe danger of my life, to profess 

' Casaub. Ep. to Card. Perron. 'In a manuscript shortly to be 


) Ep. Roff., pref. ad Lect. printed. 
K Montac. in Antidiatrib., Art. 13. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 161 


before the pope himself, that the Church of England is a true and 
orthodox Church of Christ.” This he not only promised, but faith- 
fully performed ; for though, soon after his departure, there came a 
book out of the Low Countries, falsely bearing his name, by whose 
title many were deceived even among the English, and thereby 
moved to tax him with apostacy, and of being another Ecebolius ; 
yet when he came to Rome, (where he was most kindly entertained 
in the palace of Pope Gregory XV., who formerly had been his 
fellow-student,) he could never be persuaded by the Jesuits and 
others, who daily thronged upon him, neither to subscribe the new- 
devised tenets of the Council of Trent, or to retract those orthodox 
books which he had printedin England and Germany, or to renounce 
the communion of the Church of England, in whose defence he con- 
stantly persisted to the very last. But, presently after the decease of 
Pope Gregory, he was imprisoned by the Jesuits and inquisitors in 
Castle S. Angelo, where, by being barbarously used and almost 
starved, he soon got a mortal sickness, and died in a few days, 
though not without suspicion of being poisoned. The day following, 
his corpse was, by the sentence of the Inquisition, tied to an 
infamous stake, and there burnt to ashes, for no other reason 
but that he refused to make abjuration of the religion of the Church 
of England, and subscribe some of the lately made decrees of Trent, 
which were pressed upon him as canons of the Catholic Faith. 
I have taken occasion to insert this narration, perhaps not known to 
many, to make it appear that this reverend prelate, who did great 
seryice to the Church of God, may justly (as I said before) be 
reckoned amongst the writers of the Church of England. 

Let us hear, therefore, what he taught and writ when he was in 
England, in his books De Repub. Eccel., lib. v. cap. 6. num. xx. ‘ For 
a thousand years together,” saith he, “the holy Catholic Church, 
content with a sober knowledge of divine mysteries, believed soberly, 
and safely did teach, that in the sacrament duly consecrated the faithful 
did own, receive, and eat the Body and Blood of Christ, which by 
the sacred bread and wine are given to them ;_but as to the particular 
manner how that precious Body and Blood is offered and given by 
that mysterious sacrament, the Church did humbly and religiously 
acknowledge her ignorance: the real thing, with its effects, she 
joyfully owned and received, but meekly and devoutly abstained from 
inquiring into the manner.” Item: (num. lxxiii.) ‘‘ The true and real 
Body of Christ is most certainly and undoubtedly given in the holy 
sacrament, yet not carnally, but spiritually.” Again: (num. clxix.) 
“1 doubt not but all they that believe the Gospel will acknowledge, 


that in the holy Communion we receive the true nature of the Flesh 
COSIN. M 


CHAP. 
If. 


162 THE HISTORY 


CHAP. of Christ, real and substantial. We all teach that the Body of 
il. _ Christ is present as to its reality and nature; but a carnal and cor- 
poral manner of presence we reject, with 8. Bernard and all the 
fathers.” And in Appen. ad Ambrosium: (num. vii.) “1 know and 
acknowledge that, with the bread still remaining bread, the true and 
real Body of Christ is given, yet not corporally ; I assent in the 
thing, but not in the manner: therefore, though there is a change in 
the bread, when it brings into the souls of worthy communicants the 
true Body of Christ, which is the substance of the sacrament, yet it 
doth not follow that the bread loseth its own, to become the substance 
of the Body of Christ,” &c. These, and much more to the same 
purpose, agreeable to the religion and Church of England, and all 
other Protestant Churches, you may find in the same chapter, and in 
a treatise annexed to the sixth book, against the famous Jesuit 
Suarez, who had writ against King James, and the errors (as he 
calls them) of the Church of England. In the second chapter our 
prelate proves clearly, according to its title, ‘‘That those pomts 
which the papists maintain against the protestants belong not in any 
wise to the Catholic Faith,’—as transubstantiation, &c. 
The Au- 8. As for the opinion and belief of the German protestants, it 


ee will be known chiefly by the Augustan Confession, presented to 
sion Charles V. by the princes of the empire, and other great persons. 
abi For they teach, ‘‘that not only the bread and wine, but the Body 


and Blood of Christ is truly given to the receivers :” or, as it is in 
another edition, “that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly pre- 
sent, and distributed to the communicants in the Lord’s Supper ;” 
and refute those that teach otherwise. ‘They also declare, “that we 
must so use the sacraments, as to believe and embrace by faith those 
things promised which the sacraments offer and convey to us.” Yet 
we may observe here, that faith makes not those things present 
which are promised ; for faith (as it is well known) is more properly 
said to take and apprehend, than to promise or perform: but the 
word and promise of God, on which faith is grounded (and not faith 
itself) make that present which is promised; as it was agreed at 
a conference at 8. Germains ™ betwixt some protestants and papists. 
And therefore it is unjustly laid to our charge by some in the Church 
of Rome, as if we should believe that the presence and participation 
of Christ in the sacrament is effected merely by the power of faith. 

The Saxon 9. The Saxon Confession, approved by other Churches, seems to 

pe be a repetition of the Augustan. Therein we are taught”, that “sa- 
craments are actions divinely instituted; and that, although the same 
things or actions in common use have nothing of the nature of sacra- 

™ Collat. S. Germ, 1561. DAME XV 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 163 


ments, yet, when used according to the divine institution, Christ is C H A P. 
truly and substantially present in the Communion, and His Body-and — es 
Blood truly given to the receivers: so that He testifies that He is in 

them: as S. Hilary saith, ‘ These things taken and received make Hil., Trin. 
us to be in Christ, and Christ to be in us.’ ”’ Ϊ, 8. 

10. The Confession of Wittemberg, which in the year 1552 was The Con- 
propounded to the council of Trent, is like unto this; for it teacheth® siete 
that “the true Body and Blood of Christ are given in the holy Com- berg. 
munion,” and refutes those that say that ‘‘ the bread and wine in the 
sacrament are only signs of the absent Body and Blood of Christ.” 

11. The Bohemian Confession also, that is, of them who, by con- Confessio 
tempt and out of ignorance, are called by some Picards and Wal- Bohem. 
denses, presented to King Ferdinand by the barons and nobles of 
Bohemia, and approved by Luther and Melancthon, and the famous 
university of Wittemberg, teacheth?, that ‘‘ we ought from the heart 
to believe and to profess by words, that the bread of the Lord’s 
Supper is the true Body of Christ which was given for us, and the 
wine His true Blood that was shed for us: and that it is not lawful 
for any person to bring or add any thing of his own to the words of 
Christ, or in the least to take any thing from them.” And, when 
this their Confession was defamed and abused by some of their ad- 
versaries, they answered, that ‘‘ they would ever be ready to confute 
the calumniators, and to make it appear, by strong arguments and a 
stronger faith, that they never were, and, by God’s grace, never 
would be, what their adversaries represented them.” 

12. In the same manner, the conciliation of the articles of the Consensus 
Lord’s Supper, and the mutual agreement betwixt the Churches of Po!enicus: 
the greater and lesser Polonia in the synod of Sendomiris: ‘‘ We 
hold together,” say they 4, ‘‘ the belief of the words of Christ, as they 
have been rightly understood by the fathers; or, to speak more 
plain, we believe and confess that the substantial presence of Christ 
-is not only signified in the Lord’s Supper, but also that the Body and 
Blood of our Lord is truly offered and granted to worthy receivers, 
together with those sacred signs which convey to us the thing sig- 
nified, according to the nature of sacraments. And, lest the different 
ways of speaking should breed any contention, we mutually consent 
to subscribe that article concerning the Lord’s Supper which. is in 
the Confession of the Churches of Saxony, which they sent to the 
Council of Trent ; and we hold and acknowledge it to be sound and 
pious.” Then they repeat the whole article, mentioned and set 
down a little before. 


° In the Preface. P Art. xili. 4 Near the beginning. 
δ > 
M2 


CHAP: 
ΤΙ 


Confessio 
Theol. 


Argent. 
et Basil. 


164 THE HISTORY 


13. Luther was once of opinion that the divines of Basil and 
Strasbourg did acknowledge nothing in the Lord’s Supper besides 
bread and wine. To him Bucerus, m the name of all the rest, did 
freely answer, that “they all unanimously did ‘condemn that error ;- 
that neither they nor the Switzers ever believed or taught any such 
thing ; that none could expressly be charged with that error except 
the Anabaptists ; and that he also had once been persuaded, that 
Luther in his writing attributed too much to the outward symbol, 
and maintained a grosser union of Christ with the bread than the 
Scriptures did allow, as though Christ had been corporally present 
with it, united into a natural substance with the bread, so that the 
wicked as well as the faithful were made partakers of grace by re- 
ceiving the element: but that their own doctrine and belief con- 
cerning that sacrament was, that the true Body and Blood of Christ 
was truly presented, given, and received, together with the visible 
signs of bread and wine, by the operation of our Lord, and by virtue 
of His institution, according to the plain sound and sense of His 
words; and that not only Zuinglius and Cicolampadius had so 
taught, but they also, in the public Confessions of the Churches of 
the upper Germany, and other writings, confessed it: so that the 
controversy was rather about the manner of the presence or absence, 
than about the presence or absence itself :’’ all which Bucer’s asso- ᾿ 
ciates confirm after him. He also adds, that ‘‘ the magistrates in 
their churches had denounced very severe punishments to any that 
should deny the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the 
Lord’s Supper.” Bucerus did also maintain this doctrine of the 
blessed sacrament in presence of the Landgrave of Hesse and Me- 
lancthon, confessing, “‘ that together with the sacrament we truly 
and substantially receive the Body of Christ:” also, that “ the 
bread and wine are conferring signs, giving what they represent, so 
that together with them the Body of Christ is given and received.” 
And to these he adds, that “the Body and bread are not united in 
the mixture of their substance, but in that the sacrament gives what 
it promiseth, that is, the one is never without the other: and so, they 
agreeing on both parts, that the bread and wine are not changed, he 
holds such a sacramental union.” Luther, having heard this, de- 
clared also his opinion thus: ‘‘ That he did not locally include the 
Body and Blood of Christ with the bread and wine, and unite them 
together by any natural connection ; and that he did not make proper 
to the sacraments that virtue whereby they brought salvation to the 
receivers: but that he maintained only a sacramental union betwixt 
the Body of Christ and the bread, and betwixt His Blood and the 
wine ; and did teach that the power of confirming our faith, which 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 165 


he attributed to the sacraments, was not naturally inherent in the CHAP. 
outward signs, but proceeded from the operation of Christ, and was ΞΕ 
given by His Spirit, by His words, and by the elements.” And, 

finally, in this manner he spake to all that were present: “Jf you 

believe and teach that in the Lord’s Supper the true Body and Blood 

of Christ is given and received, and not the bread and wine only, and 

that this giving and receiving is real, and not imaginary, we are 

agreed, and we own you for dear brethren in the Lord.” All this 

is set down at large in the second tome of Luther’s works, and in 

the English works of Bucer. 

14. The next will be the Gallican Confession, made at Paris in a The 
national synod, and presented to King Charles TX. at the conference ers τὲ 
of Poissy ; which speaks of the sacrament on this wise: “" Although 
Christ be in heaven, where He is to remain until He come to judge 
the world, yet we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible 
virtue of His Spirit He feeds and vivifies us, by the substance of His 
Body and Blood received by faith. Now we say that this is done in 
a spiritual manner; not that we believe it to be a fancy and imagi- 
nation, instead of a truth and real effect, but rather because that 
mystery of our union with Christ is of so sublime a nature, that it is 
as much above the capacity of our senses as it is above the order of 
nature.” Item: ‘‘ We believe that in the Lord’s Supper God gives 
us really, that is, truly and efficaciously, whatever is represented by 
the sacrament: with the signs we join the true possession and frui- 
tion of the thing by them offered to us: and so that bread and 
wine, which are given to us, become our spiritual nourishment, in 
that-they make it in some manner visible to us that the Flesh of 
Christ is our food, and His Blood our drink. Therefore those fa- 
natics that reject these signs and symbols are by us rejected; our 
blessed Saviour having said, ‘ This is My Body,’ and ‘This cup is 
My Blood’.’” This Confession hath been subscribed by the Church 
of Geneva. 

15. The envoys from the French churches to Worms made a Legat. 
declaration concerning that mystery, much after the same manner: erin 
“We confess,’ say they, ‘that in the Lord’s Supper, besides the 1555. 
benefits of Christ, the substance also of the Son of man, His true 
Body, with His Blood shed for us, are not only figuratively signified 
by types and symbols, as memorials of things absent, but also truly 
and certainly presented, given, and offered to be applied, by signs 
that are not bare and destitute, but (on God’s part, in regard of His 
offer and promise,) always undoubtedly accompanied by what they 
signify, whether they be offered to good or bad Christians.” 


rVAT. XEXVIc 


ΟἼΠΆΑΤΡΣ 
ΤΙ 


Belg. 


Conf. 


Helvet. 
Confess. 
prior. 


Helvet. 
Conf. po- 
sterior. 


Conf. 


Thorun. 


166 THE HISTORY 


16. Now follows the Belgic Confession, which professeth it to 
be “‘most certain that Christ doth really effect in us what is figured 
by the signs, although it be above the capacity of our reason to 
understand which way, the operations of the Holy Ghost being 
always occult and incomprehensible®.”’ 

17. The more ancient Confession of the Switzers, made by com- 
mon consent at Basil, and approved by all the Helvetic protestant 
churches, hath itt, that, ‘ while the faithful eat the bread and drink 
the cup of the Lord, they, by the operation of Christ working by the 
Holy Spirit, receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, and thereby 
are fed unto eternal life.” But, notwithstanding that they affirm 
that this food is spiritual, yet they afterwards conclude, “that by 
spiritual food they understand not imaginary, but the very Body 
of Christ which was given for us.” 

18. And the later Confession of the Switzers, writ and printed in 
1566, affirms as expressly the true presence of Christ’s Body in the 
Eucharist thus: ‘‘ Outwardly the bread is offered by the minister, 
and the words of Christ heard: ‘ Take, eat, this is My Body: Drink 
ye all of this, this is My Blood.’ Therefore the faithful receive 
what Christ’s minister gives, and drink of the Lord’s cup; and at 
the same time, by the power of Christ working by the Holy Ghost, 
are fed by the Flesh and Blood of our Lord unto eternal life,” &c. 
Again: “ Christ is not absent from His Church celebrating His holy 
Supper. The sun in heaven, being distant from us, is nevertheless 
present by his efficacy: how much more shall Christ, the Sun of 
Righteousness, who is bodily in heaven, absent from us, be spiritu- 
ally present to us by His life-giving virtue, and as He declared in 
His last Supper He would be present; (John xiv, xv. xvi.) whence 
it follows that we have no communion without Christ.’’ Now to this 
Confession not only the reformed Switzers did subscribe, but also 
the Churches of Hungary, Pannonia or Transylvania, Poland, and 
Lithuania, which follow neither the Augustan nor Bohemian Con- 
fessions. It was subscribed also by the Churches of Scotland and 
Geneva. 

19. Lastly, let us hear the renowned declaration of the reformed 
Churches of Poland, made in the assembly of Thorun, whereby they 
profess, that as to what concerns the sacrament of the Eucharist, 
“they assent to that opinion which in the Augustan Confession, in the 
Bohemian, and that of Sendomire, is confirmed by Scripture.” Then 
afterwards, in another declaration, they explain their own mind, thus 
saying: 1. “That the sacrament consisteth of earthly things, as 
bread and wine; and things heavenly, as the Body and Blood of 


s Art. XXXV. ΕἾΝ, xx 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 167 


our Lord: both of which, though in a different manner, yet most 
truly and really, are given together at the same time,—earthly things 
in an earthly, corporal, and natural way,—heavenly things in a mystic, 
spiritual, and heavenly manner.” 2. Hence they infer, “that the 
bread and wine are, and are said to be with truth, the very Body and 
Blood of Christ, not substantially indeed, that is, not corporally, but 
sacramentally and mystically, by virtue of the sacramental union, 
which consisteth not in a bare signification or obligation only, but 
also in a real exhibition and communication of both parts, earthly 
and heavenly, together at once, though in a different manner.” 3. 
In that sense they affirm with the ancients, ‘“‘that the bread and 
wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, not in nature 
and substance, but in use and efficacy; in which respect the sacred 
elements are not called what they are to sense, but what they are 
believed and received by faith grounded on the promise.” 4. They 
deny “ to believe the signs to be bare, inefficacious, and empty, but 
rather such as truly give what they seal and signify, being efficacious 
instruments and most certain means whereby the Body and Blood 
of Christ, and so Christ Himself with all His benefits, is set forth 
and offered to all communicants, but conferred and given to true 
believers, and by them received as the saving and vivifying food of 
their souls.” 5. They deny not “the true presence of the Body 
and Blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, but only the corporal 
manner of His presence.”’ They believe “‘a mystical union betwixt 
Christ and us, and that not imaginary, but most true, real, and effi- 
cacious.”” 6. Thence they conclude, “that not only the virtue, effi- 
cacy, operation, or benefits of Christ are communicated to us, but 
more especially the very substance of His Body and Blood, so that 
He abides in us and we in Him.” 

20. Now because great is the fame of Calvin, (who subscribed the 
Augustan Confession and that of the Switzers,) let us hear what he 
writ and believed concerning this sacred mystery. His words in his 
Institutions and elsewhere are such, so conformable to the style and 
mind of the ancient fathers, that no Catholic protestant would wish 
to use any other. “I understand,” saith he, ‘‘ what is to be under- 
stood by the words of Christ, that He doth not only offer us the 
benefits of His death and resurrection, but His very Body wherein 
He died and rose again. I assert that the Body of Christ is really, 
(as the usual expression is,) that is, truly, given to us in the sacra- 
ment, to be the saving food of our souls".” Also, in another place : 
“Item, that word cannot lie, neither can it mock us ; and, except one 
presumes to call God a deceiver, he will never dare to say that the 


" Comm. on 1 Cor. 


CHAP. 
Il. 


168 THE HISTORY 


C HAP. symbols are empty, and that Christ is not in them. Therefore. if by 
Il. the breaking of the bread our Saviour doth represent the participa- 
tion of His Body, it is not to be doubted but that He truly gives and 
confers it. If it be true that the visible sign is given us to seal the 
gift of an invisible thing, we must firmly believe that, receiving the 
signs of the Body, we also certainly receive the Body itself. Setting 
aside all absurdities, I do willingly admit all those terms that can 
most strongly express the true and substantial communication of the 
Body and Blood of Christ granted to the faithful with the symbols 
of the Lord’s Supper; and that, not as if they received only by 
the force of their imagination, or an act of their minds, but really so 
as to be fed thereby unto eternal life’.”” Again: ‘“‘ We must there- 
fore confess that the inward substance of the sacrament is joined 
with the visible sign; so that, as the bread is put into our hand, the 
Body of Christ is also given to us. This certainly, if there were 
nothing else, should abundantly satisfy us that we understand that 
Christ in His holy Supper gives us the true and proper substance of 
His Body and Blood; that, it being wholly ours, we may be made 
partakers of all His benefits and graces”.” Again: ‘The Son of 
God offers daily to us in the holy sacrament the same Body which 
He once offered in sacrifice to His Father, that it may be our spiri- 
tual food.” In these he asserts, as clearly as any one can, the true, 
real, and substantial presence and communication of the Body of 
Christ ; but how, he undertakes not to determine. ‘‘If any one*,” 
saith he, ‘‘ask me concerning the manner, I will not be ashamed to 
confess that it is a secret too high for my reason to comprehend, or 
my tongue to express ; or, to speak more properly, I rather feel 
than understand it: therefore, without disputing, I embrace the 
truth of God, and confidently repose on it. He declares that His 
Flesh is the food, and His Blood the drink of my soul; and my soul 
I offer to Him to be fed by such nourishment. He bids me take, 
eat, and drink, His Body and Blood, which in His holy Supper He 
offers me under the symbols of bread and wine: I make no scruple 
but He doth reach them to me, and I receive them.’”’ All these are 
Calvin’s own words. 

21. I was the more willing to be long in transcribing these things 
at large, out of public Confessions of Churches and the best of 
authors, that it might the better appear how injuriously protestant 
divines are calumniated by others unacquainted with their opinions, 
as though by these words, ‘ spiritually’ and ‘sacramentally,’ they did 
not acknowledge a true and well-understood real presence and com- 


¥ Instit., book iv. ch. 17. x Tnstit., book iv. ch. 17. num. 32. 
* Treat. of the Lord’s Supper. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 169 


munication of the Body and Blood of Christ in the blessed sacrament; C H A P. 
whereas, on the contrary, they do professedly own it in terms as 
express as any can be used, 


CHAP. III. 


1. WHAT THE PAPISTS DO UNDERSTAND BY CHRIST BEING SPIRITUALLY PRE- 
SENT IN THE SACRAMENT, 2. WHAT S. BERNARD UNDERSTOOD BY IT. 
3. WHAT THE PROTESTANTS. 4, FAITH DOTH NOT CAUSE, BUT SUPPOSE THE 
PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 9. THE UNION BETWIXT THE BODY OF CHRIST AND 
THE BREAD IS SACRAMENTAL. 


1. Havrne now, by what I have said, put it out of doubt that the 
protestants believe a spiritual and true presence of Christ in the 
sacrament, which is the reason that, according to the example of the 
fathers, they use so frequently the term spiritual in this subject,—it 
may not be amiss to consider, in the next place, how the Roman 
Church understands that same word. Now they’ make it to signify, 
“that Christ is not present in the sacrament either after that manner 
which is natural to corporal things, or that wherein His own Body 
subsists in heaven, but according to the manner of existence proper 
to spirits whole and entire, in each part of the host; and, though by 
Himself He be neither seen, touched, nor moved, yet in respect of 
the species or accidents joined with Him, He may be said to be 
seen, touched, and moved ;” ‘‘and so%, the accidents being moved, the 
Body of Christ is truly moved accidentally, as the soul truly changeth 
place with the body; so that we truly and properly say, that the 
Body of Christ is removed, lifted up, and set down, put on the paten 
or on the Altar, and carried from hand to mouth, and from the mouth 
to the stomach :” ‘‘as Berengarius* was forced to acknowledge in the 
Roman council under Pope Nicholas, that the Body of Christ was 
sensually touched by the hands, and broken and chewed by the teeth 
of the priest.” But all this, and much more to the same effect, was 
never delivered to us either by Holy Scripture or the ancient fathers. 
And, if souls or spirits could be present, as here Bellarmine teacheth, 
yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise, 
it being inconsistent with their nature. 


Y Bell., de Euch., 1. i. c. 2. 8 3. reg. * Tbid., part. 1. 
et seq. * [bid., § 5. reg. 


CHAP. 


11]. 


170 THE HISTORY 


2. Indeed, Bellarmine confesseth with S. Bernard®, that ‘ Christ 
in the sacrament is not given to us carnally, but spiritually :᾿ and 
would to God he had rested here, and not outgone the Holy Scrip- 
tures and the doctrine of the fathers. For endeavouring, with Pope 
Innocent III. and the council of Trent, to determine the manner of 
the presence and manducation of Christ’s Body with more nicety than 
was fitting, he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said 
before, denied what he had affirmed, and opposed his own opinion. 
“ His fear was, lest his adversaries should apply that word spiritually, 
not so much to express the manner of presence, as to exclude the 
very substance of the Body and Blood of Christ: therefore,” saith 
he, “upon that account it is not safe to use too much that of S. Ber- 
nard, ‘ The Body of Christ is not corporally in the sacrament,’ without 
adding presently the above-mentioned explanation.”” How much 
do we comply with human pride and curiosity, which would seem 
to understand all things! Where is the danger? and what doth he 
fear, as long as all they that believe the Gospel own the true nature 
and the real and substantial presence of the Body of Christ in 
the sacrament, using that explication of S. Bernard concerning the 
manner, which he himself, for the too great evidence of truth, durst 
not but admit? And why doth he own that the manner is spiritual, 
not carnal, and then require a carnal presence as to the manner 
itself? As for us, we all openly profess with S. Bernard, that the 
presence of the Body of Christ in the sacrament is spiritual, and 
therefore true and real; and, with the same Bernard and all the 
ancients, we deny that the Body of Christ is carnally either present 
or given. he thing we willingly admit, but humbly and religiously 
forbear to inquire into the manner. 

3. We believe a presence and union of Christ with our soul 
and body, which we know not how to call better than sacramental, 
that is, effected by eating ; that, while we eat and drink the conse- 
crated bread and wine, we eat and drink therewithal the Body and 
Blood of Christ, not in a corporal manner, but some other way, 
incomprehensible, known only to God, which we call spiritual{ for 
if, with S. Bernard and the fathers, a man goes no further, we do 
not find fault with a general explication of the manner, but with the 
presumption and self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously 
inquire what is a spiritual presence, as presuming that they can 
understand the manner of acting of God’s Holy Spirit. We con- 
trariwise confess, with the fathers, that this manner of presence is 
unaccountable and past finding out, not to be searched and pried 


b §. Bern. de S. Martin. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 171 


into by reason, but believed by faith. And, if it seems impossible 
that the Flesh of Christ should descend and come to be our food 
through so great a distance, we must remember how much the 
power of the Holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehensions, 
and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure His immensity 
by our weakness and narrow capacity, and so make our faith to con- 
ceive and believe what our reason cannot comprehend. 

4. Yet our faith doth not cause or make that presence, but appre- 
hends it as most truly and really effected by the word of Christ ; and 
the faith whereby we are said to eat the Flesh of Christ is not that 
only whereby we believe that He died for our sins, (for this faith is 
required and supposed to precede the sacramental manducation,) but 
more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ, ‘‘ This 
is My Body;” — which was S. Austin’s meaning when he said, 
“Why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth? Believe, and 
thou hast eaten’.” For in this mystical eating, by the wonderful 
power of the Holy Ghost, we do invisibly receive the substance 
of Christ’s Body and Blood, as much as if we should eat and drink 
both visibly. 

5. The result of all this is, that the Body and Blood of Christ are 
sacramentally united to the bread and wine, so that Christ is truly 
given to the faithful, and yet is not to be here considered with sense 
or worldly reason, but by faith, resting on the words of the Gospel. 
Now it is said, that the Body and Blood of Christ are joined to the 
bread and wine, because that in the celebration of the holy Eucharist 
the Flesh is given together with the bread, and the Blood together 
with the wine. All that remains is, that we should with faith and 
humility admire this high and sacred mystery, which our tongue 
cannot sufficiently explain, nor our heart conceive. 


© Aug. super Joh., tract. 25. 


CHAP. 
Ill. 


172 THE HISTORY 


CHAP. IV. 


1. OF THE CHANGE OF THE BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF 
CHRIST, WHICH THE PAFISTS CALL TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 2. OF GOD’S OM- 
NIPOTENCY. 8. OF THE ACCIDENTS OF THE BREAD. 4, THE SACRAMENTAL 
UNION OF THE THING SIGNIFIED WITH THE SIGN. 5, AND 6. THE QUESTION 
IS STATED NEGATIVELY AND AFFIRMATIVELY. 7. THE DEFINITION OF THE 
COUNCIL OF TRENT. THE BULL OF POPE PIUS IV., AND THE FORM OF THE 
OATH BY HIM APPOINTED. THE DECRETAL OF INNOCENT Ill, THE ASSER- 
TIONS OF THE JESUITS. 8. TRANSUBSTANTIATION A VERY MONSTROUS 
THING. 


CHAP. 1. Ir is an article of faith in the Church of Rome, that in 

__!V- _ the blessed Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine is reduced 
to nothing, and that in its place succeeds the Body and Blood 
of Christ; as we shall see more at large, ὃ 6. and 7. The protest- 
ants are much of another mind; and yet none of them denies alto- 
gether but that there is a conversion of the bread into the Body (and 
consequently of the wine into the Blood) of Christ: for they know 
and acknowledge that in the sacrament, by virtue of the words and 
blessing of Christ, the condition, use, and office, of the bread is wholly 
changed; that is, of common and ordinary, it becomes our mystical 
and sacramental food; whereby, as they affirm and believe, the true 
Body of Christ is not only shadowed and figured, but also given 
indeed, and by worthy communicants truly received. Yet they 
believe not that the bread loseth its own to become the substance of 
the Body of Christ ; for the Holy Scripture, and the ancient interpre- 
ters thereof for many ages, never taught such an essential change 
and conversion, as that the very substance, the matter and form of 
the bread, should be wholly taken away,—but only a mysterious and 
sacramental one, whereby our ordinary is changed into mystic bread, 
and thereby designed and appointed to another use, end, and office, 
than before: this change, whereby supernatural effects are wrought 
by things natural, while their essence is preserved entire, doth best 
agree with the grace and power of God. 

2. There is no reason why we should dispute concerning God’s 
omnipotency, whether it can do this or that, presuming to measure 
an infinite power by our poor ability which is but weakness. We 
may grant that He is able to do beyond what we can think or appre- 
hend, and resolve His most wonderful acts into His absolute will and 





» 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 1.78 


power; but we may not charge Him with working contradictions, C H A P. 


And, though God’s almightiness were able in this mystery to destroy 
the substance of bread and wine, and essentially to change it into the 
Body and Blood of Christ, while the accidents of bread and wine 
subsist of themselves without a subject; yet we desire to have it 
proved that God will have it so, and that it is so indeed. For that 
God doth it, because He can, is no argument; and, that He wills it, 
we have no other proof but the confident assertion of our adversaries. 
Tertullian against Praxias declared, “‘that we should not conclude 
God doth things because He is able, but that we should inquire 
what He hath done.” For God will never own that praise of His 
omnipotency, whereby His unchangeableness and His truth are 
impaired, and those things overthrown and destroyed which in His 
word He affirms to be: for take away the bread and wine, and there 
remains no sacrament. 

3. They, that say that the matter and form of the bread are 
wholly abolished, yet will have the accidents to remain. But, if the 
substance of the bread be changed into the substance of Christ’s 
Body by virtue of His words, what hinders that the accidents of the 
bread are not also changed into the accidents of Christ’s Body? 
They that urge the express letter should shew that Christ said, ‘ This 
is the substance of My Body without its accidents.’ But He did not 
say that He gave His disciples a fantastic body,—such a visionary 
figment as Marcion believed,—but that very Body which was given 
for us, without being deprived of that extension and other accidents 
of human bodies without which it could not have been crucified. 
Since the maintainers of transubstantiation grant, that the Body 
of Christ keeps its quantity in heaven, and say it is without the same 
in the sacrament, they must either acknowledge their contradiction 
in the matter, or give over their opinion. 

4. Protestants dare not be so curious, or presume to know more 
than is delivered by Scripture and antiquity: they, firmly believing 
the words of Christ, make the form of this sacrament to consist in 
the union of the thing signified with the sign, that is, the exhibition 
of the Body of Christ with the consecrated bread, still remaining 
bread: by divine appointment these two are made one ; and, though 
this union be not natural, substantial, personal, or local, by their 
being one within another, yet it is so straight and so true, that 
in eating the blessed bread, the true Body of Christ is given to us, 
and the names of the sign and thing signified are reciprocally 
changed,—what is proper to the Body is attributed to the bread, and 
what belongs only to the bread is affirmed of the Body, and both are 
united in time, though not in place: for the presence of Christ 


re 





174 THE HISTORY 


. in this mystery is not opposed to distance, but to absence, which only 


could deprive us of the benefit and fruition of the object. 

5. From what hath been said, it appears that this whole contro- 
versy may be reduced to four heads :—1. concerning the signs: 
2. concerning the thing signified: 3. concerning the union of both; 
and 4. concerning their participation. As for the first, the protest- 
ants differ from the papists in this, that, according to the nature of 
sacraments, and the doctrine of Holy Scripture, we make the sub- 
stance of bread and wine, and they accidents only, to be signs. In 
the second, they, not understanding our opinion, do misrepresent it : 
for we do not hold (as they say we do) that only the merits of 
the death of Christ are represented by the blessed elements, but also 
that His very Body which was crucified, and His Blood which was 
shed for us, are truly signified and offered, that our souls may receive 
and possess Christ as truly and certainly as the material and visible 
signs are by us seen and received. And so, in the third place, 
because the thing signified is offered and given to us as truly as the 
sign itself, in this respect we own the union betwixt the Body and 
Blood of Christ and the elements, whose use and office we hold to be 
changed from what it was before. But we deny what the papists 
affirm, that the substance of bread and wine are quite abolished, and 


~ changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord, in such sort that the 


bare accidents of the elements do alone remain united with Christ’s 
Body and Blood. And we also deny that the elements still retain 
the nature of sacraments, when not used according to divine insti- 
tution, that is, given by Christ’s ministers, and received by His 
people ; so that Christ in the consecrated bread ought not—cannot 
be kept and preserved to be carried about, because He is present 
only to the communicants. As for the fourth and last point,)we do 
not say that in the Lord’s Supper we receive only the benefits 
of Christ’s death and passion: but we join the ground with its 
fruits, that is, Christ with those advantages we receive from Him ; 
affirming with S. Paul, that “the bread which we break 15. kowevia— 
the communion of the Body of Christ, and the cup which we bless 
the communion of His Blood,”’—of that very substance which He 
took of the blessed Virgin, and afterwards carried into heaven ; dif- 
fering from those of Rome only in this, that they will have our 
union with Christ to be corporal, and our eating of Him likewise, 
and we, on the contrary, maintain it to be indeed as true, but not 
carnal or natural. And, as he that receives unworthily, (that is, with 
the mouth only, but not with a faithful heart,) eats and drinks 
his own damnation, so he that doth it worthily receives his absolu- 
tion and justification,—that is, he that discerns, and then receives the 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 78 


Lord’s Body as torn, and His Blood as shed, for the redemption of 
the world. But, that Christ (as the papists affirm) should give His 
Flesh and Blood to be received with the mouth and ground with the 
teeth, so that not only the most wicked and infidels, but even rats 
and mice, should swallow Him down,—this our words and our hearts 
do utterly deny. 

6. So, then, (to sum up this controversy by applying to it all that 
hath been said,) it is not questioned whether the Body of Christ be 
absent from the sacrament duly administered according to His insti- 
tution, which we protestants neither affirm nor believe ; for, it being 
given and received in the communion, it must needs be that it is 
present, though in some manner veiled under the sacrament, so that 


CHAP. 


of itself it cannot be seen. Neither is it doubted or disputed ~ 


whether the bread and wine, by the power of God and a supernatural 
virtue, be set apart and fitted for a much nobler use, and raised to a 
higher dignity, than their nature bears ; for we confess the necessity 
of a supernatural and heavenly change, and that the signs cannot 
become sacraments but by the infinite power of God, whose proper 
right it is to institute sacraments in His Church, being able alone to 
endue them with virtue and efficacy. Finally, we do not say that 
our blessed Saviour gave only the figure and sign of His Body, 
neither do we deny a sacramental union of the Body and Blood 
of Christ with the sacred bread and wine, so that both are really and 
substantially received together; but (that we may avoid all ambi- 
guity) we deny that, after the words and prayer of consecration, the 
bread should remain bread no longer, but should be changed into 
the substance of the Body of Christ, nothing of the bread but only 
the accidents continuing to be what they were before. And so the 
whole question is concerning the transubstantiation of the outward 
elements, whether the substance of the bread be turned into the 
substance of Christ’s Body, and the substance of the wine into the 
_substance of His Blood; or, as the Romish doctors describe their 
transubstantiation, whether the substance of bread and wine doth 
utterly perish, and the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood succeed 
in their place, which are both denied by protestants. 

7. The Church of Rome sings on Corpus Christi day: “ This is 
not bread, but God and man my Saviour.” And the council 
of Trent doth thus define it: “‘ Because Christ our Redeemer said 
truly, that that was His Body which He gave in the appearance of 
bread, therefore it was ever believed by the Church of God, and is 
now declared by this sacred synod, that by the power of consecra~ 
tion the whole substance of the bread is changed into the substance 
of Christ’s Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the sub- 


CTHEASE: 


176 THE HISTORY 


stance of His Blood; which change is fitly and properly called tran- 


τ substantiation by the holy Catholic (Roman) Church*,” ** Therefore, 


if any one shall say, that the substance of bread and wine remains with 
the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and shall deny that 
wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the 
bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, 
the only appearance and outward form of the bread and wine remain- 
ing, which conversion the Catholic (Roman) Church doth fitly call 
transubstantiation, let him be accursed®.” The pope, confirming 
this council, defines it after the same manner, imposeth an oath and 
declaration to the same purpose, and so makes it one of the new 
articles of the Roman faith, in the form and under the penalty 
following: “1, N., do profess and firmly believe all and every the 
singulars contained in the confession of faith allowed by the holy 
Church of Rome, viz. : I believe in one God, &c. . .. I also profess 
that the Body and Blood, with the Soul and Godhead, of our Saviour 
Jesus Christ, are truly, really, and substantially in the mass and in 
the sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a conversion of the 
whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole sub- 
stance of the wine into the Blood of Christ; which conversion the 
(Roman) Catholic Church calls ¢ransubstantiation. .. . 1 fully embrace 
all things defined, declared, and delivered by the holy council 
of Trent; and withal I do reject, condemn, and accurse all things by 
it accursed, condemned, or rejected. I do confidently believe that 
this faith, which I now willingly profess, is the true Catholic faith, 
without the which it is impossible to be saved and 1 do promise, 
vow, and swear, that I will constantly keep it whole and undefiled to 
my very last breath: so help me God and these holy Gospels’.” 
Afterwards he bravely concludes this decree with this commination : 
“Let no man, therefore, dare to attempt the breaking of this our 
deed and injunction, or be so desperate as to oppose it. And, if any 
one presumes upon such an attempt, let him know that he thereby 
incurs the wrath of Almighty God, and of His blessed apostles Peter 
and Paul. Given at Rome, in S. Peter’s church, the thirteenth of 
November, in the year of our Lord 1564, the fifth of our pontificate.” 
Which is as much as to say, that he had received this his Roman 
faith from Pope Innocent III., who first decided and imposed this 
doctrine of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body 
and Blood of Christ, and made it an article of faith, adding this new 
devised thirteenth to the ancient twelve articles. For so we find it 
published in his decretal propounded to the assembly at Lateran in 


d Cone. Trident. Sess. xiii. c. 4. f Bulla Pii Pape 4V. confir. Cone. 
€ Ibid., can. ii. Trident. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 177 


1215, and proclaimed afterwards by his nephew Pope Gregory IX., CHAP. 
thus: ‘ We firmly believe and simply acknowledge, that there is one ἘῈΞ 
only true God, &c. ;.,.and that, in the sacrament of the Altar, the Body 
and Blood of Christ are truly contained under the accidents of bread 
and wine, which are transubstantiated, the bread into the Body, and 
the wine into the Bloods.” To these definitions of popes, I will add 
only the tenets of three Jesuits, which are highly approved by the 
late followers of the new Roman faith. First, of Alphonsus Salme- 
ron: “‘ We must of necessity,”’ saith he», “ hold transubstantiation, 
—that the substance of bread and wine, which Luther and some 
others admit, may be excluded; that the words of Christ” (which yet 
are most true’ without that) “‘may be verified; that’? (how few of 
these many are pertinent to their purpose will be seen hereafter) 
“many testimonies of the fathers concerning conversion, mutation, 
consecration, benediction, transformation, sanctification, (for by all 
these names almost they have called transubstantiation,) may stand 
firm, and not be vain and insignificant; and lastly, that we may 
maintain a solid presence of the Body and Blood of Christ.’’ Item : 
*“As David changed his countenance before Abimelech, and then 
received the shew-bread, that was a certain type of the Eucharist, so 
Christ in the sacrament feigns Himself to be bread, and yet is not 
bread, though He seems so to be most visibly!” Secondly, of Car- 
dinal Francis Tolet: “The words of consecration are efficacious 
instruments whereby to transubstantiate the substance of the bread 
into the true Body of Christ; so that, after they are spoken, there 
remains in the host none of the substance of the bread, but only the 
accidents of it, which are called the properties of the bread, under 
which the true Body of Christ is present*.” Thirdly, and lastly, of 
Cardinal Bellarmine: “The Catholic Church ever taught, that, by 
the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of 
Christ, (which conversion hath been in after-times called transub- 
stantiation,) it comes to pass that the Body and Blood of our Lord 
are truly and really present in the sacrament'.” It would be to no 
purpose to bring the testimonies of others of the Latin or Roman 
Church, who give to the pope an absolute power of defining what 
he pleaseth, for they are but the same stuff as these : but, if any one 
hath a mind, let him consult Gretserus his defence of Bellarmine™, 
or his dialogue who first writ against Luther", who both reduce the 
whole matter to the judgment and decree of the pope. 


& Decret. de Sum. Trin. et Fide Ca- k Instr. Sacerd., ]. ii. c. xxvii. 
thol., tit. i. 1 Lib. iii. de Euchar., cap. Xi. 
h Tom. ix. tract. 16. m Grets., Def. Bellarm., lib. iii. c. ix. 
‘ Tom. xvi., disp. iii. in Ep. S. Petri. ® Syl. Prier. sub initio. 
COSIN. N 


CS ὠ ζ ἔε Ὗ7Ἵ 


178 THE HISTORY 


CHAP. 8. Now, we leave inquiring what God is able to do: for we 


IV. 


= 


should first know His will in this matter, before we examine His 
power: yet thus much we say, that this Roman transubstantiation 
is so strange and monstrous, that it exceeds the nature of all mi- 
racles. And, though God by His almightiness be able to turn the 
substance of bread into some other substance, yet none will believe 
that He doth it, as long as it appears to our senses that the sub- 
stance of the bread doth still remain whole and entire. Certain it 
is that hitherto we read of no such thing done in the Old or New 
Testament ; and therefore this tenet, being as unknown to the an- 
cients as it is ungrounded in Scripture, appears as yet to be very in- 
credible; and there is no reason we should believe such an unau- 
thorised figment, newly invented by men, and now imposed as an 
article of Christian religion. or it is in vain that they bring Serip- 
ture to defend this their stupendous doctrine: and it is not true, 
what they so often and so confidently affirm, that the universal 
Church hath always constantly owned it, being it was not so much 
as heard of in the Church for many ages, and hath been but lately 
approved by the pope’s authority in the councils of Lateran and 
Trent;—as I shall prove in the following chapters. 


CHAP. V. 


THAT NEITHER THE WORD NOR NAME OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, NOR THE DOC- 
TRINE OR THE THING ITSELF, IS TAUGHT OR CONTAINED IN HOLY SCRIPTURE, 
OR IN THE WRITINGS OF THE ANCIENT DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH, BUT RATHER 
IS CONTRARY TO THEM; AND THEREFORE NOT OF FAITH. 


1. Tue word transubstantiation is so far from being found either 
in the sacred records or in the monuments of the ancient fathers, 
that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was 
not so much as heard of before the twelfth century. For, though 
one Stephanus bishop of Autun be said to have once used it, yet it 
is without proof that some modern writers make him one of the 
tenth century ; nor yet doth he say that the bread is transubstan- 
tiated, but as it were transubstantiated: which, well understood, 
might be admitted°. 

2. Nay, that the thing itself without the word,—that the doctrine 


° See ch. i. art. 6, ch. 111. art. 4, ch. iy. art. 5, and this ch. art. 5. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 179 


without the expression, cannot be found in Scripture, is ingenuously 
acknowledged by the most learned schoolmen, Scotus, Durandus, 
Biel, Cameracensis, Cajetan, and many more; who, finding it not 
brought in by the pope’s authority, and received in the Roman 
Church, till 1200 years after Christ, yet endeavoured to defend it 
by other arguments. 

3. Scotus confessed, that ‘‘ there is not any place in Scripture so 
express as to compel a man to admit of transubstantiation, were it 
not that the Church hath declared for it ,”’ (that is, Pope Innocent 
IIT. in his Lateran council.) Durandus said, that ‘‘ the word is found,” 
but that “by it the manner they contend for cannot be proved4.” 
Biel affirms, that ‘‘it is no where found in canonical Scriptures τ. 
Occam declared, that “it is easier, more reasonable, less inconve- 
nient, and better agreeing with Scripture, to hold that the substance 
of the bread remains’. After him Cardinal Cameracensis doth 
also confess, that ‘‘ transubstantiation cannot be proved out of the 
Scripturest”’ Nay, the Bishop of Rochester saith himself, that 
“there is no expression in Scripture whereby that conversion of sub- 
stance in the mass can be made good".” Cardinal Cajetan like- 
wise: “ There is not any thing of force enough in the Gospel to 
make us understand in a proper sense these words, ‘This is My 
Body*.’” Nay, ‘‘ that presence which the Church” (of Rome) ‘ be- 
lieves in the sacrament cannot be proved by the words of Christ without 
the declaration of the” (Roman) ‘“‘ChurchY.” Lastly, Bellarmine him- 
self doth say, that, “though he might bring Scripture clear enough» 
to his thinking, to prove transubstantiation by, to an easy man, yet 
still it would be doubtful whether he had done it to purpose, be- 
cause some very acute and learned men, as Scotus, hold that it 
cannot be proved by Scripture”.’’ Now in this protestants desire 
no more but to be of the opinion of those learned and acute men. 

4. And indeed the words of institution would plainly make it ap- 
‘pear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling, that it is with 
the bread that the Lord’s Body is given, as His Blood with the wine : 
for Christ, having taken, blessed, and broken the bread, said, ‘‘ This 
is My Body ;” and S. Paul, than whom none could better under- 
stand the meaning of Christ, explains it thus: ‘*‘ The bread which 
we break is the κοινωνία, communion or communication, of the Body 
of Christ,”—that, whereby His Body is given, and the faithful are 


P Scot. in iv. Sentent. d. xi. q. 3. ἃ Lib. contra Luth. de Capt. Babyl., 
4 Durand. ut supra. Ca 
τ Biel, in Can. miss., sect. 40. * Cajetan, in Tho., p. iii. q. 75. art. i. 
5 Occam, Cent., ]. iv. q. 6; et in iv. Υ Ibid., q. 45. art. 14. 

Sent. d. xi. q. 6. * Bell. de Euch., 1. iii. ὁ. 23. 


τ Cam. in iv. ἃ. xi. q. 6. 
N 2 


CHAP. 


CHAP. 
Ve 


180 THE HISTORY 


made partakers of it. That it was bread, which He reached to them, 
there was no need of any proof: the receivers’ senses sufficiently con- 
vinced them of it: but, that therewith His Body was given, none 
could have known, had it not been declared by Him who is the truth 
itself. And though by the divine institution, and the explication of 
the Apostle, every faithful communicant may be as certainly assured 
that he receives the Lord’s Body as if he knew that the bread is 
substantially turned into it, yet it doth not therefore follow, that the 
bread is so changed that its substance is quite done away, so that 
there remains nothing present but the very natural Body of Christ 
made of bread. or certain it is, that the bread is not the Body of 
Christ, any otherwise than as the cup is the New Testament; and 
two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not dif- 
ferent expressions. Therefore, as the cup cannot be the New Testa- 
ment but by a sacramental figure, no more can the bread be the 
Body of Christ but in the same sense. 

5. As to what Bellarmine and others say, that it is not possible 
the words of Christ can be true but by that conversion which the 
Church of Rome calls transubstantiation, that is so far from being so, 
that, if it were admitted, it would, first, deny the Divine omnipo- 
tency, as though God were not able to make the Body of Christ pre- 
sent, and truly to give it in the sacrament, whilst the substance of 
the bread remains; secondly, it would be inconsistent with the 
Divine benediction, which preserves things in their proper being ; 
thirdly, it would be contrary to the true nature of a sacrament, 
which always consisteth of two parts; and lastly, it would in some 
manner destroy the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, 
which cannot be said to be made of bread and wine by a priest with- 
out a most high presumption. But the truth of the words of Christ 
remains constant, and can be defended, without overthrowing so 
many other great truths. Suppose a testator puts deeds and titles 
in the hand of his heir with these words, ‘ Take the house which I 
bequeath thee :᾿ there is no man will think that those writings and 
parchments are that very house, which is made of wood or stones ; 
and yet no man will say that the testator spake falsely or obscurely. 
Likewise our blessed Saviour, having sanctified the elements by His 
words and prayers, gave them to His disciples as seals of the New 
Testament ; whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and 
precious legacies which He left to them, as children are of their 
fathers’ lands and inheritance by deeds and instruments signed and 
delivered for that purpose. 

6. To the sacred records we may add the judgment of the primi- 
tive Church: for those orthodox and holy doctors of our holier re- 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 181 


ligion, those great lights of the Catholic Church, do all clearly, con- CHAP. 
stantly, and unanimously conspire in this, that the presence of the 
Body of Christ in the sacrament is only mystic and spiritual. As 
for the entire annihilation of the substance of the bread and the wine, 
or that new and strange tenet of transubstantiation, they did not so 
much as hear or speak any thing of it: nay, the constant stream of 
their doctrine doth clearly run against it, how great soever are the 
brags and pretences of the papists to the contrary. And, if you will 
hear them one by one, I shall bring some of their most noted pas- 
sages only, that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that 
they have said to our purpose on this subject. 

7. I shall begin with that holy and ancient doctor, Justin Martyr, Just.Mart. 
who is one of the first after the Apostles’ times whose undoubted Beles 
writings are come to us. What was believed at Rome and else- 
where in his time concerning this holy mystery may well be under- 
stood out of these his words: ‘‘ After that the bishop hath prayed 
and blessed, and the people said ‘Amen,’ those whom we call deacons 
or ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of 
the bread and wine; and that food we call the Eucharist, for we do 
not receive it as ordinary bread and wine*.’”? They received it as 
bread, yet not as common bread. And a little after: ‘‘ By this food 
digested our flesh and blood are fed, and we are taught that it is 
the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.” Therefore the substance of 
the bread remains, and remains corruptible food, even after the con- 
secration; which can in no wise be said of the immortal Body of ν᾿ 
Christ: for the Flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh, neither 
doth it nourish it, as doth that food which is sacramentally called 
the Flesh of Christ: but the Flesh of Christ feeds our souls unto 
eternal life. 

8. After the same manner it is written by that holy martyr Ire- Ss. Iren. 
nzeus, bishop much about the same time: ‘‘ The bread which is A.D. 160. 
from the earth is no more common bread after the invocation of 
God upon it, but is become the Eucharist, consisting of two parts, 
the one earthly, and the other heavenly.” There would be nothing 
earthly, if the substance of the bread were removed. Again: ‘“‘As 
the grain of wheat, falling in the ground and dying, riseth again 
much increased, and then receiving the word of God becomes the 
Eucharist,” (which is the Body and Blood of Christ,) ‘‘so likewise 
our bodies nourished by it, laid in the ground and dissolved, shall rise 
again in their time®.” Again: ‘‘ We are fed by the creature, but it 
is He Himself that gives it: He hath ordained and appointed that 


4 Apol. ad Anton., prope finem. > Lib. iv. cont. Heres., c. 34. 
Ρ prop 
o abs v. ας 12. 


CHAP. 
We 


Tertul. 
A.D. 200. 


182 THE HISTORY 


cup which is a creature and His Blood also, and that bread which 
is a creature and also His Body: and so, when the bread and 
the cup are blessed by God's word, they become the Eucharist 
of the Body and Blood of Christ, and from them our bodies receive 
nourishment and increase*.” Now, that our flesh is fed and in- 
creased by the natural Body of Christ, cannot be said without great 
impiety by themselves that hold transubstantiation: for naturally 
nothing nourisheth our bodies but what is made flesh and blood by 
the last digestion, which it would be blasphemous to say of the in- 
corruptible Body of Christ. Yet the sacred elements, which in some 
manner are, and are said to be, the Body and Blood of Christ, yield 
nourishment and increase to our bodies by their earthly nature, in 
such sort that, by virtue also of the heavenly and spiritual food which 
the faithful receive by means of the material, our bodies are fitted ‘ 
for a blessed resurrection to immortal glory. 

9. Tertullian, who flourished about the two hundredth year after 
Christ, when as yet he was Catholic and acted by a pious zeal, 
wrote against Marcion the heretic, who, amongst his other impious 
opinions, taught that Christ had not taken of the Virgin Mary the 
very nature and substance of a human body, but only the outward 
forms and appearances: out of which fountain the Romish transub- 
stantiators seem to have drawn their doctrine of accidents, abstracted 
from their subject, hanging in the air, that is, subsisting on nothing. 
Tertullian, disputing against this wicked heresy, draws an argument 
from the sacrament of the Eucharist, to prove that Christ had not a 
fantastic and imaginary, but a true and natural Body, thus: The 
figure of the Body of Christ proves it to be natural ; for there can be 
no figure of a ghost ora phantasm. ‘ But,” saith he, ‘‘ Christ having 
taken the bread, and given it to His disciples, made it His Body by 
saying, ‘This is My Body,’ that is, the figure of My Body. Now it 
could not have been a figure except the Body were real; for a mere 
appearance, an imaginary phantasm, is not capable of a figure®.” 
Each part of this argument is true, and contains a necessary con- 
clusion. For, first, the bread must remain bread: otherwise Marcion 
would have returned the argument against Tertullian, saying, as the 
transubstantiators, it was not bread, but merely the accidents of 
bread, which seemed to be bread. Secondly, the Body of Christ is 
proved to be true by the figure of it, which is said to be bread: for 
the bread is fit to represent that divine Body, because of its nourish- 
ing virtue, which in the bread is earthly, but in the Body is heavenly. 
Lastly, the reality of the Body is proved by that of its figure: and 
so, if you deny the substance of the bread, (as the papists do,) you 


“ Thid, © Contra Marcion., ]. iv. ο. 40. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 183 - 


thereby destroy the truth and reality of the Body of Christ in the 
sacrament. 


CHAP. 
τς 


10. Origen also, about the same time with Tertullian, speaks Origen. 
much after the same manner: “ If Christ,” saith he, “as these men 4+): 220. 


(the Marcionites) falsely hold, had neither Flesh nor Blood, of what 
manner of Flesh, of what Body, of what Blood, did He give the signs 
and images when He gave the bread and wine!?” If they be the 
signs and representations of the Body and Blood of Christ, though 
they prove the truth of His Body and Blood, yet they, being signs, 
cannot be what they signify; and, they not being what they repre- 
sent, the groundless contrivance of transubstantiation is overthrown. 
Also upon Leviticus he doth expressly oppose it thus: ‘‘ Acknow- 
ledge ye that they are figures, and therefore spiritual, not carnal: 
examine and understand what is said: otherwise, if you receive as 
things carnal, they will hurt but not nourish you. For in the Gospel 
there is the letter, which kills him that understands not spiritually 
what is said; for, if you understand this saying according to the 
letter, ‘ Except you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood,’ the letter will 
kill yous.” Therefore, as much as these words belong to the eating 
and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood, they are to be understood 
mystically and spiritually. Again, writing on S. Matthew, he doth 
manifestly put a difference betwixt the true and immortal, and the 
typic and mystical Body of Christ: for the sacrament consisteth of 
both. ‘‘ That food,” saith he, ‘“‘ which is sanctified by the word of 
God and prayer, as far as it is material, descends into the belly, and 
is cast out into the draught®.” This he saith of the typic, which is 
the figure of the true Body. God forbid we should have any such 
thoughts of the true and heavenly Body of Christ, as they must that 
understand His natural Body by what Origen calls His material and 
sacramental Body, which no man in his wits can understand of mere 
_ accidents. 

11. 5. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, a glorious martyr of Christ, 
wrote a famous epistle to Ceecilius concerning the sacred chalice in 
the Lord’s Supper, whereof this is the sum: “ Let that cup which is 
offered to the people in commemoration of Christ be mixed with 
wine :”’ (against the opinion of the Aquarii, who were for water only :) 
“for it cannot represent the Blood of Christ when there is no wine 
in the cup; because the blood of Christ is expressed by the wine, as 
the faithful are understood by the water‘.” But the patrons of 
transubstantiation have neither wine nor water in the chalice they 

f Dial. 111. de Hom. Christo, contra reason of these words, among the here- 
Marcion. tics called Stercoraniste. 


§ Homil. 7. in Levit. * Lib. ii. ep. 3, sive 63. edit. Pamel. 
* Origen is unjustly numbered, by 


Matt. xv. 


S. Cy- 


prian. 


A.D. 250. 


CHAP. 


We 





Conc. Nic. 
A.D. 325. 


184 THE HISTORY 


offer ; and yet without them (especially the wine, appointed by our 


— blessed Saviour, and whereof Cyprian chiefly speaks,) the Blood of 


Christ is not so much as sacramentally present : so far was the pri- 
mitive Church from any thing of believing a corporal presence of 
the Blood, the wine being reduced to nothing, (that is, to a mere 
accident without a substance ;) for then they must have said, that 
the water was changed into the people, as well as the wine into the 
Blood. But there is no need that I should bring many testimonies 
of that father, when all his writings do plainly declare that the true 
substance of the bread and wine is given in the Eucharist, that that 
spiritual and quickening food which the faithful get from the Body 
and Blood of Christ, and the mutual union of the whole people joined 
into one body, may answer their type, the sacrament which repre- 
sents them. 

12. Those words of the Council of Nice are well known, whereby 
the faithful are called from the consideration of the outward visible 
elements of bread and wine, to attend the inward and spiritual act of 
the mind, whereby Christ is seen and apprehended: ‘‘ Let not our 
thoughts dwell low on that bread and that cup which are set before 
us; but, lifting up our minds by faith, let us consider that on this 
sacred Table is laid the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of 
the world....And, receiving truly His precious Body and Blood, let us 
believe these things to be the pledges and emblems of our resurrec- 
tion ; for we do not take much, but only a little’ (of the elements,) 
“that we may be mindful we do it not for satiety, but for sanc- 
tification ἡ. Now who is there, even among the maintainers of 
transubstantiation, that will understand this ‘ not much, but a litile,’ of 
the Body of Christ? or who can believe that the Nicene fathers 
would call His Body and Blood symbols in a proper sense, when 
nothing can be an image or a sign of itself? And therefore, though 
we are not to rest in the elements, minding nothing else, (for we 
should consider what is chiefest in the sacrament, that we have our 
hearts ‘lifted up unto the Lord,’ who is given together with the signs,) 
yet elements they are, and the earthly part of the sacrament, both 
the bread and the wine : which destroys transubstantiation. 

13. S. Athanasius, famous in the time and present in the assem- 


‘ bly of the Nicene Council, a stout champion of the Catholic Faith, 


acknowledgeth none other but a spiritual manducation of the Body of 
Christ in the sacrament. ‘‘Our Lord,” saith he, ‘‘ made a difference 
betwixt the flesh and the spirit, that we might understand that what 
He said was not carnal, but spiritual. For how many men could 
His Body have fed, that the whole world should be nourished by it? 


Ὁ In Actis, ibid. a Gelas. Cyzic. conscript. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 185 


But therefore He mentioned His ascension into heaven, that they CHAP. 
might not take what He said in a corporal sense, but might under- Le 
stand that His Flesh whereof He spake is a spiritual and heavenly 

food’, given by Himself from on high: ‘ For the words that I spake * πνευμα- 
unto you, they are spirit and they are life ;’ as if He should say, My oie ως 
Body which is shewn and given for the world shall be given in food, 

that it may be distributed spiritually? to every one, and preserve ? πνευμα- 
them all to the resurrection to eternal life*.”’ Cardinal Perron!, ™** 
having nothing to answer to these words of this holy father, in 

a kind of despair rejects the whole tractate, and denies it to 

be Athanasius’s: which nobody ever did before him, there being 

no reason for it. 

14. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, of the same age with S. Athana- S. Cyril. 

sius, treating of the chrism wherewith they then anointed those that fen: παν, 
were baptised, speaks thus: “ Take heed thou dost not think that 
this is a mere ointment only : for as the bread of the Eucharist, after 
the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer ordinary bread, but 
is the Body of Christ, so this holy ointment is no longer a bare com- 
mon ointment after it is consecrated, but is the gift or grace of 
Christ, which, by His divine nature, and the coming of the Holy 
Ghost, is made efficacious; so that the body is anointed with the 
ointment, but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying Spirit™.” 
Can any thing more clear be said? Either the ointment is transub- 
stantiated by consecration into the Spirit and Grace of Christ, or the 
bread and wine are not transubstantiated by consecration into the 
Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, as the ointment retains still its 
substance, and yet is not called a mere or common ointment, but 
the Charism or Grace of Christ, so the bread and wine remaining so, 
as to their substance, yet are not said to be only bread and wine 
common and ordinary, but also the Body and Blood of Christ. 
“‘Under the type of bread,” saith he, “the Body is given thee, and 
‘the Blood under the type of the wine®.” This Grodecius doth 
captiously and unfaithfully interpret ‘under the appearances of bread 
and wine:’ for those mere appearances, or accidents subsisting with- 
out a subject, never so much as entered into the mind of any of 
the ancients. 

15. Much to the same purpose we have in the Anaphora, or S. Basil. 
liturgy, attributed to S. Basil: “We have set before you the type A.D. 360, 
of the Body and Blood of Christ ;’”—which he calls the bread of the 


kK Tn illud Evangelii, Quicunque dix- m Cateches., Myst. ili. 
erit verbum, &c.—Et in ec. vi. S. Joh. 2 Catech., Myst. iv. ‘‘ Thy bodily 
Qui manducat Carnem Meam, &c. palate,” saith he, “ tasteth one thing 


1 De Euch., 1. ii. c. 1. art. 10. there, and thy faith another.” 


186 THE HISTORY 


CHAP. Eucharist after the consecration®. If it be the type of the Body, 
V-_ then certainly it cannot be the Body and nothing else; for, as we 
said before, nothing can be the figure of itself, no more than a man 
can be his own son or father. There be also prayers in that liturgy, 
“that the bread may become the Body of Christ, for the remission 
of sins and life eternal, to the receivers.’’ Now true it is, that to the 
faithful the element becomes a vivifying body, because they are truly 
partakers of the heavenly bread, the Body of Christ: but to others, 
who either receive not, or are not believers, to them the bread may 
be the antitype, but is not, neither doth become the Body of Christ ; 
for without faith Christ is never eaten: as is gathered from the same 
fatherP. 
S. Greg. 16. S. Gregory Nyssen, his brother, doth clearly declare what 
ath, change is wrought in the bread and wine by consecration, saying : 
«« As the Altar naturally is but common stone, but, being consecrated, 
becomes an holy Table, a spotless Altar, so the bread of the Eucharist 
is at first ordinary, but, being mysteriously sacrificed, it is, and is 
called the Body of Christ, and is efficacious to great purposes: and, 
as the priest (yesterday a layman) by the blessing of ordination be- 
comes a doctor of piety and a steward of mysteries, and, though not 
changed in body or shape, yet is transformed and made better as to 
his soul by an invisible power and grace, so also, by the same conse- 
quence, water, being nothing but water of itself, yet, blessed by a 
heavenly grace, renews the man, working a spiritual regeneration in 
him4.”’ Now let the assertors of transubstantiation maintain, that a 
stone is substantially changed into any Altar, a man into a priest, the 
water in Baptism into an invisible grace, or else that the bread is 
not so changed into the Body of Christ: for according to this father 
there is the same consequence in them all. 
S. Ambr. 17. Likewise 5. Ambrose, explaining what manner of alteration 
* is in the bread when in the Eucharist it becomes the Body of Christ, 
saith: ‘‘ Thou hadst indeed a being, but wert an old creature; but, 
being now baptised or consecrated, thou art become a new creature?.” 
The same change that happens to man in Baptism happens to the - 
bread in the sacrament: if the nature of man is not substantially 
altered by the new birth, no more is the bread by consecration. 
Man becomes by Baptism, not what nature made him, but what 
grace new-makes him; and “the bread becomes by consecration, 
not what it was by nature, but what the blessing consecrates it to 
be’.” For nature made only a mere man, and made only common 


° Lib. de Spiritu Sancto. τ Lib. de Sacram. iv. cap. 4. 


» Lib. de Bapt. 5. Ibid. de init. Myst., cap. 9. 
4 Orat. de S. Baptism. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 187 


bread; but regeneration of a mere man makes a holy man, in whom 
Christ dwells spiritually: and likewise the consecration of common 
bread makes mystic and sacramental bread; yet this change doth not 
destroy nature, but to nature adds grace: as is yet more plainly 
expressed by that holy father in the fore-cited place. ‘‘ Perhaps 
thou wilt say,” saith he, ‘‘this my bread is common bread. It is 
bread indeed before the blessing of the sacrament; but, when it is 
consecrated, it becomes the Body of Christ. This we are therefore 
to declare,—How can that which is bread be also the Body of Christ ἢ 
By consecration. And consecration is made by the words of our 
Lord, that the venerable sacrament may be perfected. You see how 
efficacious is the word of Christ. If there be then so great a power 
in the word of Christ to make the bread and wine to be what they 
were not, how much greater is that power which still preserves them 
to be what they were, and yet makes them to be what they were 
not! Therefore, that I may answer thee, it was not the Body of 
Christ before the consecration, but now after the consecration it is 
the Body of Christ. He said the word, and it was done: thou thyselr 
wert before, but wert an old creature; after thou hast been conse- 
crated in Baptism, thou art become a new creature'.”” By these words 
S. Ambrose teacheth how we are to understand that the bread is the 
Body of Christ, to wit, by such a change that the bread and wine do 
not cease to be what they were as to their substance, (for then they 
should not be what they were,) and yet by the blessing become what 
before they were not; for so they are said to remain (as indeed they 
do) what they were by nature, that yet they are changed by grace, 
—that is, they become assured sacraments of the Body and Blood of 
Christ, and by that means certain pledges of our justification and re- 
demption. What is there can refute more expressly the dream of 
transubstantiation ? 


CHAP. 
i 


18. 5. Chrysostom doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal 5. Chrys. 


transubstantiation and eating of Christ’s Body without eating the 
bread. “Sacraments,” saith he, “ ought not to be contemplated and 
considered carnally, but with the eyes of our souls, that is, spiritually; 
for such is the nature of mysteries": where observe the opposition 
betwixt carnally and spiritually, which admits of no plea or reply. 
Again: ‘As in Baptism the spiritual power of regeneration is given 
to the material water, so also the immaterial gift of the Body and 
Blood of Christ is not received by any sensible corporal action, but 
by the spiritual discernment of our faith, and of our hearts and 
minds* :” which is no more than this, that sensible things are called 
by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signify. 


t De Shter., lib. iv. c. 4 ° Hom. xv. in 8. Joh. * Tbid. 


A.D. 390. 


S. Austin. 
A.D. 400. 


188 THE HISTORY 


. But he speaks more plainly in his epistle to Cesarius, where he 


teacheth, that in this mystery there is not in the bread a substantial 
but a sacramental change, according to the which the outward ele- 
ments take the name of what they represent, and are changed in 
such a sort that they still retain their former natural substance. 
“The bread,” saith he, “is made worthy to be honoured with the 
name of the Flesh of Christ by the consecration of the priest, yet the 
Flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature, as the bread 
doth its natural substance. Before the bread be sanctified, we call 
it bread; but, when it is consecrated by the divine grace, it deserves 
to be called the Lord’s Body, though the substance of the bread still 
remains’.”’ When Bellarmine could not answer this testimony of 
that great doctor, he thought it enough to deny that this epistle is 
S. Chrysostom’s’*: but both he and Possevin do vainly contend that 
it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom. For, besides that 
at Florence’ and elsewhere it was to be found among them, it is 
cited in the collections against the Severians, which are in the version 
of Turrianus the Jesuit, in the fourth tome of Antig. Lectionum of 
Henry Canisius and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus 
against the Acephali. I bring another testimony out of the imper- 
fect work on S. Matthew, written either by S. Chrysostom or some 
other ancient author,—a book in this at least very orthodox, and 
not corrupted by the Arians: “In these sanctified vessels,” saith he, 
“the true Body of Christ is not contained, but the mystery of His 
Body.” 

19. Which also hath been said by S. Austin above a thousand 
times; but out of so many, almost numberless, places 1 shall choose 
only three, which are as the sum of all the rest. “ You are not to 
eat this Body which you see, nor drink this Blood which My eru- 
cifiers shall shed: I have left you a sacrament which, spiritually un- 
derstood, will vivify you».’’ Thus 5. Austin, rehearsing the words 
of Christ. Again: ‘ If sacraments had not some resemblance with 
those things whereof they are sacraments, they could not be sacra- 
ments at all. From this resemblance they often take the names of 
what they represent: therefore, as the sacrament of Christ’s Body is 
in some sort His Body, so the sacrament of Faith is Faith also*.”” 
To the same sense is what he writes against Maximinus the Arian : 
‘‘We mind in the sacraments, not what they are, but what they 
shew ; for they are signs, which are one thing, and signify another?.” 


Σ In Ep. ad Cesar. contra heres. Pet. Mart., lib. 11. de Euchar. 
Apol. Pine Pe.93: 

2 Lib. de Euchar. ii. c. 22. ¢ Epist. 25. ad Bonif. 

* Steph. Gard, Epise. Wint. contra 4 Contra Max., lib. 111. ¢.*22. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 189 


And in another place, speaking of the bread and wine: ‘ Let no CHAP. 
man look to what they are, but to what they signify; for our Lord 
was pleased to say, This is My Body, when He gave the sign of 
His Bodye.” This passage of S. Austin is so clear, that it admits 
of no evasion nor no denial: for if the sacraments are one thing, 
and signify another, then they are not so changed into what they 
signify, as that after that change they should be no more what 
they were. The water is changed in Baptism, as the bread and 
wine in the Lord’s Supper; but all that is changed is not presently 
abolished or transubstantiated; for, as the water remains entire in 
Baptism, so do the bread and wine in the Eucharist. 

20. S. Prosper, orthodox in all things, who lived almost in the 8. Prosp. 
time of Austin, teacheth, that ‘‘the Eucharist consisteth of two A.D. 430. 
things, the visible appearance of the elements, and the invisible Flesh 
and Blood of our Saviour Christ, (that is, the sacrament and the 
grace of the sacrament,) as the person of Christ is both God and 
man‘.” Who but the infamous heretic Eutyches would say that 
Christ as God was substantially changed into man, or as man into 
God? 


21. Upon this subject nothing can be more clear than this of B. Theo- 
dor. 


Theodoret, whence we learn what the primitive Church believes in 4 Ὁ. 431 


this matter: ‘“‘Our Saviour, in the institution of the Eucharist, 
changed the names of things, giving to His Body the name of its 
sacrament, and to the sacrament the name of His Body.’’ Now this 
was done for this reason, as he saith, “that they that are partakers 
of the divine mysteries might not mind the nature of what they see, 
but, by the change of names, might believe that change which is 
wrought by grace. For He that called what by nature is His Body 
wheat and bread,—He also honoured the elements and signs with the 
names of His Body and Blood, not changing what is natural, but 
adding grace to it®.”” He therefore teacheth that such an altera- 
tion is wrought in the elements, that still their nature and substance 
continues, as he explains more plainly afterwards. For, when the 
heretic that stands for Eutychius had said, ‘As the sacrament of 
the Lord’s Body and Blood are one thing before the prayer of the 
priest, and afterwards, being changed, become another, so also the 
Body of our Lord after His ascension is changed into the Divine sub- 
stance and nature”,”’ (according to the tenet of the transubstantiator, 
this Eutychian argument is irrefragable, but) Catholic antiquity an- 
swers it thus: ‘“‘ Thou art entangled in the nets of thine own knit- 
ting : for the elements or mystic signs depart not from their nature 


* De Doctr. Christ., cap.-7. 5. Dials 1. Β Dial. 2. 
‘ Sent. Prosp. dist. 11. de Cons., cap. Hoc est. 





CHAP. 
Ve 


S. Gelas. 
A.D. 470 
or 490, 
plus mi- 
nus, 


190 THE HISTORY 


after consecration, but remain in their former substance, form, and 
kind, and can be seen and touched as much as before; and yet withal 
we understand also what they become now they are changed. Com- 
pare, therefore, the copy with the original, and thou shalt see their 
likeness: for a figure must answer to the truth. That body hath 
the same form and fills the same space as before, and, in a word, is 
the same substance; but after its resurrection it is become immortal,” 
&c. All this and much more is taught by Theodoret, who assisted 
at the universal Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. [{ is an idle 
exception which is made by some in the Church of Rome, as though 
by the nature and substance of the elements, which are said to re- 
main, Theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the 
accidents, (as Cardinal Bellarmine’ is pleased to speak most absurdly :) 
but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss; for Theo- 
doret joins together ‘ nature,’ ‘substance,’ ‘ form,’ and ‘figure :’ and, 
indeed, what answer could they have given to the Eutychian argu- 
ment, if, the substance of the bread being annihilated after the con- 
secration, the accidents only remain? Or did Christ say concerning 
the accidents of the bread and wine, These accidents are, or This 
accident is, My Body? But (though we have not that liberty, yet) 
the inventors of transubstantiation may, when they please, make a 
Creator of acreature, substances of accidents, accidents of substances, 
and any thing out of any thing. But sure they are too immodest 
and uncharitable, who, to elude the authority of so famous and so 
worthy a father as Theodoret, allege that he was accused of some 
errors in the Council of Ephesus, though he repented afterwards, as 
they themselves are forced to confess. Fain would they, if they 
could, get out at this door, when they cannot deny that he affirmed 
that the elements remain in their natural substance, as he wrote in 
the dialogues which he composed against the Eutychian heretics 
with the applause and approbation of the Catholic Church. And 
indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our adver- 
saries to yield that Theodoret is of our side: for in the epistle be- 
fore the dialogues of Theodoret in the Roman edition, set forth by 
Stephen Nicolinus, the pope’s printer, in the year 1547, it is plainly 
set down, that “in what concerned transubstantiation his opinion 
was not very sound ;” but that he “‘ was to be excused, because the 
Church (of Rome) had made no decree about it *.” 

22. With Theodoret we may join Gelasius, who, (whether he 
were Bishop of Rome or no,) as Bellarmine confesseth, was of the 
same age and opinion as he, and therefore a witness ancient and cre- 
dible enough. He wrote against Eutyches and Nestorius, concern- 

i Lib. ii. de Euch., c. 27. k Pref. in Dial. Theod. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 191 


ing the two natures in Christ, in this manner: ‘‘ Doubtless the sa- CHAP. 
crament of the Body and Blood of Christ, which we receive, is a very 
divine thing, whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature ; 
and yet it doth not cease to be bread and wine by substance and na- 
ture: and indeed the image and resemblance of the Body and Blood 
of Christ is celebrated in this mysterious action. By this, therefore, 
we see manifestly enough, that we must believe that to be in Christ 
which we believe to be in His sacrament; that as, by the perfecting 
virtue of the Holy Ghost, it becomes a divine substance, and yet re- 
mains in the propriety of its nature, so this great mystery, the Incarna- 
tion, of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image, doth demon- 
strate that there is one entire and true Christ, consisting of two na- 
tures, which yet properly remain unchanged!.”’ It doth plainly ap- 
pear, out of these words, that the change wrought in the sacrament is 
not substantial ; for, first, the sanctified elements are so made the Body 
and Blood of Christ, that still they continue to be by nature bread and 
wine: secondly, the bread and wine retain their natural properties, 
as also the two natures in Christ: Jastly, the elements are said to 
become a divine substance, because, while we receive them, we are 
made partakers of the divine nature by the Body and Blood of Christ 
which are given to us. These things being so, their blindness is to 
be deplored, who see not that they bring again into the Church of 
Rome the same error which antiquity piously and learnedly con- 
demned in the Eutychians. And, as for their threadbare objection 
to this™, “that by the substance of bread and wine the true substance 
itself is not to be understood, but only the nature and essence of the 
accidents,”’—it is a very strange and very poor shift. There is a 
great deal more of commendation due to the ingenuity of Cardinal 
Contarenus, who, yielding to the evidence of truth, answered nothing 
to this plain testimony of Gelasius®. 

23. Now I add Cyril of Alexandria, who said°, that “ the Body 8. Cyril. 
and Blood of Christ in the sacrament are received only by a pure aad ἐν 
faith :’’ as we read in that epistle against Nestorius, which six hun- Chalc., 
dred fathers approved and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon ἢ". en 450. 
I omit to mention the other fathers of this age, though many things 
in their writings be as contrary to transubstantiation, and the inde- 
pendency of accidents, as any I have hitherto cited. 

24. I come now to the sixth century, about the middle whereof Ephrem. 


Ephrem, patriarch of Antioch, wrote a book, which was read and ὌΝ eD- 


De duabus in Christo Naturis Patrum. 
in Biblioth. Patrum, tom. iv. * In Colloq. Ratisb. A.D. 1541. 
™ Bell. loco citat., Baron. A.D. 496; ° Inter Ep. Cyr. in Con. Eph, 
nota marg. ad verba Gelassi in BB. P Concil. Chal., art. 5. 


Facund. 
Epise. 
A.D. 550. 


1514, Hisp. 
A.D. 630. 


192 THE HISTORY 


. commended by Photius, concerning sacred constitutions and cere- 


monies, against the Eutychians. Therein, that he might prove the 
hypostatical union, that in Christ there is no confusion of natures, 
but that each retains its own substance and properties, he brings the 
comparison of the sacramental unicn, and denies that there should 
be any conversion of one substance into another in the sacrament. 
«No man,” saith he, “παῖ hath any reason, will say, that the na- 
ture of the palpable and impalpab’e, and the nature of the visible 
and invisible, is the same. For so the Body of Christ, which is re- 
ceived by the faithful, remains in its own substance, and yet withal 
is united to a spiritual grace: and so Baptism, though it becomes 
wholly spiritual, yet it loseth not the sensible property of its sub- 
stance, (that is, water,) neither doth it cease to be what it was made 
by grace?.” 

25. It is not very long since the works of Facundus, an African 
bishop, were printed at Paris; but he lived in the same century. 
Now what his doctrine was against transubstantiation, as also of the 
Church in his time, is plainly to be seen by those words of his which 
I here transcribe: ‘‘ The sacrament of adoption may be called adop- 
tion, as the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, consecrated 
in the bread and wine, is said to be His Body and Blood ; not that 
His Body be bread, or His Blood wine, but because the bread and 
wine are the sacrament of His Body and Blood, and therefore so 
called by Christ, when He gave them to His disciples*.” Sirmondus 
the Jesuit hath writ annotations on Facundus: but, when he came 
to this place, he had nothing to say, but that the bread is no bread, 
but only the likeness and appearance of bread: an opinion so unlike 
that of Facundus, that it should not have been fathered upon him by 
a learned and ingenuous man, as Sirmondus would be thought to be ; 
for he cannot so much as produce any one of the ancient fathers 
that ever made mention of accidents subsisting without a subject, 
(called by him, the appearances of bread.) And as for his thinking, 
that “ some would take the expressions of Facundus to be somewhat 
uncouth and obscure,” how unjust and injurious it is to that learned 
father may easily be observed by any. 

26. Isidore, bishop of Hispal, about the beginning of the seventh 
century, wrote thus concerning the sacrament: ‘‘ Because the bread 
strengthens our body, therefore it is called the Body of Christ ; and, 
because the wine is made blood, therefore the Blood of Christ is ex- 
pressed by it. Now these two are visible, but yet, being sanctified 
by the Holy Spirit, they become the sacraments of the Lord’s Body : 
for the bread which we break is the Body of Christ; who said, I am 


P Photius, in Biblioth., n. 229. 4 Lib. ix. ¢. 5. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 193 


the bread of life: and the wine is His Blood, as it is written, I am 
the true vine’.” Behold, saith he, they become a sacrament, not 
the substance of the Lord’s Body ; for the bread and wine which 
feed our fiesh cannot be substantially, nor be said to be, the Body 
and Blood of Christ: but sacramentally they are so, as certainly as 
that they are so called. But this he declares yet more clearly, (lib. 
vi. Etymol. cap. 19.) “ For, as the visible substances of bread and 
wine nourish the outward man, so the word of Christ, who is the 
bread of life, refresheth the souls of the faithful, being received by 
faith.” These words were recorded and preserved by Bertram the 


priest, when as in the editions of Isidore they are now left out. 


CHAP. 
ΕΒ 


27. And the same kind of expressions as those of Isidorus were Ven.Bede, 


also used by Venerable Bede our countryman, who lived in the 
eighth century, in his sermon upon the Epiphany*; of whom we 
also take these two testimonies following: ‘‘In the room of the 
flesh and blood of the lamb, Christ substituted the sacrament of 
His Body and Blood, in the figure of bread and winet.” Also: 
“ΑὉ supper He gave to His disciples the figure of His holy Body 
and Blood®.” These utterly destroy transubstantiaticn. 


A.D. 720. 


28. In the same century Charles the Great wrote an epistle to Car. Mag: 


our Alcuinus, wherein we find these words: ‘‘ Christ at supper 
broke the bread to His disciples, and likewise gave them the cup, 
in figure of His Body and Blood; and so left to us this great 
sacrament for our benefit*.” If it was the figure of His Body, 
it could not be the Body itself; indeed the Body of Christ is given 
in the Eucharist, but to the faithful only, and that by means of the 
sacrament of the consecrated bread. 


A.D. 778. 


29. But now, about the beginning of the ninth century, started Pasch. 


up Paschasius, a monk of Corbie, who first, (as some say, whose 
judgment I follow not,) among the Latins, taught that Christ was 
consubstantiated, or rather enclosed in the bread and corporally 
‘united to it in the sacrament’; for as yet there was no thought of 
the transubstantiation of bread. But these new sorts of expres- 
sions, not agreeing with the Catholic doctrine and the writings of 
the ancient fathers, had few or no abettors before the eleventh 
century ; and in the ninth, whereof we now treat, there were not 
wanting learned men, (as Amalarius, archdeacon of Triars,—Rabanus, 
at first abbot of Fulda, and afterwards archbishop of Mentz,—John 
Erigena, an English divine,—Walafridus Strabo, a German abbot,— 
Ratramus or Bertramus, first priest of Corbie, afterwards abbot of 


τ Lib. i. de Offic. Eccl., cap, 18. " Com. in Psal. iii, ς 
8 Serm. de Epiph. x Ep. ad Alcuin. de ratione Sept. 
τ Com. in Luce. xxii. y Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Christi. 


COSIN, ἵ oO 


A.D. 818. 


CHAP. 
Vic 


194 THE HISTORY 


Orbec in France,—and many more,) who by their writings opposed 
this new opinion of Paschasius, or of some others rather, and deli- 
vered to posterity the doctrine of the ancient Church. 

Yet we have something more to say concerning Paschasius ; 
whom Bellarmine” and Sirmondus4 esteemed so highly, that they 
were not ashamed to say that he was the first that had writ to the 
purpose concerning the Eucharist, and that he had so explained the 
meaning of the Church, that he had shewn and opened the way to all 
them who treated of that subject after him. Yet in that whole book 
of Paschasius there is nothing that favours the transubstantiation of 
the bread, or its destruction or removal. Indeed, he asserts the truth 
of the Body and Blood of Christ’s being in the Eucharist, which pro- 
testants deny not: he denies that the consecrated bread is a bare 
figure, a representation void of truth, which protestants assert not. 
But he hath many things repugnant to transubstantiation, which, as 
I have said, the Church of Rome itseif had not yet quite found out. 
I shall mention a few of them. ‘‘ Christ,” saith he, ‘left us this 
sacrament, a visible figure and character of His Body and Blood, 
that by them our spirit might the better embrace spiritual and invi- 
sible things, and be more fully fed by faith.” Again: ‘‘ We must 
receive our spiritual sacraments with the mouth of the soul and the 
taste of faith.” Item: ““ Whilst therein we savour nothing carnal ; 
but, we being spiritual, and understanding the whole spiritually, we 
remain in Christ.” And a little after: ‘‘The Flesh and Blood of 
Christ are received spiritually.” And again: “ΤῸ savour according 
to the flesh is death, and yet to receive spiritually the true Flesh of 
Christ is life eternal.” Lastly: ‘‘ The Flesh and Blood of Christ are 
not received carnally, but spiritually.”” In these he teacheth that 
the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is not, and ought not to be, under- 
stood carnally, but spiritually ; and that this dream of corporal and 
oral transubstantiation was unknown to the ancient Church. As 
for what hath been added to this book by the craft (without doubt) 
of some superstitious forger, (as Erasmus complains that it too fre- 
quently happens to the writings of the ancients,) it is fabulous; as 
the visible appearing of the Body of Christ in the form of an infant 
with fingers of raw flesh; such stuff is unworthy to be fathered on 
Paschasius, who professed that he delivered no other doctrine con- 
cerning the sacrament than that which he had learned out of the 
ancient fathers, and not from idle and uncertain stories of miracles. 

30. Now it may be requisite to produce the testimony of those 
writers before mentioned to have written in this century. 


* Bell. de Scriptor. Eccles., verbo 4 Sirm. in vita Pasch., pref. editione 
Pasch. Parisiensi. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 195 


“Τὴ all that I write,” saith Amalarius, “1 am swayed by the judg- 
ment of holy men and pious fathers; yet I say what I think myself. 
Those things that are done in the celebration of divine service are 
done in the sacrament of the passion of our Lord as He Himself com- 
manded: therefore the priest, offering the bread with the wine and 
water in the sacrament, doth it in the stead of Christ; and the 
bread, wine, and water, in the sacrament represent the Flesh and 
Blood of Christ: for sacraments are somewhat to resemble those 
things whereof they are sacraments. Therefore let the priest be like 
unto Christ, as the bread and liquors are like the Body and Blood of 
Christ. Such is in some manner the immolation of the priest on the 
Altar, as was that of Christ on the Cross.” Again: ‘‘ The sacrament 
of the Body of Christ is in some manner the Body of Christ; for 
sacraments should not be sacraments, if in some things they had not 
the likeness of that whereof they are sacraments: now, by reason of 
this mutual likeness, they oftentimes are called by what they repre- 
sent.” Lastly: ‘“ Sacraments have the virtue to bring us to those 
things whereof they are sacraments>.” These things writ Amala- 
rius, according to the expressions of S. Austin, and the doctrine 
of the purest Church. 

31. Rabanus Maurus, a great doctor of this age, who could “ hardly 
be matched either in Italy or in Germany°,” published this his open 
confession: ‘‘Our blessed Saviour would have the sacrament of 
His Body and Blood to be received by the mouth of the faithful, 
and to become their nourishment, that by the visible body the effects 
of the invisible might be known: for, as the material food feeds the 
body outwardly and makes it known to grow, so the word of God 
doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul.” Also: ‘‘ He would 
have the sacramental elements to be made of the fruits of the earth, 
that as He, who is God invisible, appeared visible in our flesh, and 
mortal to save us mortals, so He might by a thing visible fitly repre- 
sent to us a thing invisible. Some receive the sacred sign at the 
Lord’s Table to their salvation, and some to their ruin; but the thing 
signified is life to every man, and death to none. Whoever receives 
it, is united as a member to Christ the Head in the kingdom of 
heaven; for the sacrament is one thing, and the efficacy of it 
another: for the sacrament is received with the mouth, but the 
grace thereof feeds the inward man. And, as the first is turned into 
our substance when we eat it and drink it, so are we made the Body 
of Christ when we live piously and obediently. . . . Therefore the faith- 
ful do well and truly receive the Body of Christ, if they neglect not to 
be His members; and they are made the Body of Christ, if they will 


> Pref. in libr. de Eccl. Offic. ¢ Trithem. de Script. Eccl. 


CHAP. 
Vic 


Amal. 
A.D. 820. 


Raban. 
A.D. 825. 


CHAP. 
VE 


Joh. Erig. 
A.D. 800, 


Wal. Strab. 
A.D. 860. 


Bertram, 
priest and 
abbot. 
A.D. 860. 


196 THE HISTORY 


live of His Spirit’.’”’ All these agree not in the least with the new 
doctrine of Rome, and as little with that opinion they attribute to 
Paschasius; and therefore he is rejected as erroneous by some 
Romish authors, who writ four and six hundred years after him®: 
but they should have considered that they condemned not only Ra- 
banus, but together with him all the doctors of the primitive Church. 

32. Johannes Erigena, our countryman, (whom King Alfred took 
to be his and his children’s tutor, and to eredit the new-founded 
University of Oxford,) while he lived in France, where he was in 
great esteem with Charles the Bald, wrote a book‘! concerning the 
Body and Blood of our Lord, to the same purpose as Rabanus, and 
backed it with clear testimonies of Scripture and of the holy fathers. 
But entering himself into the monastery of Malmsbury, as he was 
interpreting the book of Dionysius about the heavenly hierarchy, 
(which he translated into Latin,) and withal censuring the newly 
hatched doctrine of the carnal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he 
was stabbed with penknives, by some unworthy scholars of his, set 
on by certain monks; though not long after he was by some others™ 
numbered among holy martyrs. 

33. Walafridus Strabo, about the same time, wrote on this manner : 
«Therefore in that last Supper, whereat Christ was with His disciples 
before He was betrayed, after the solemnities of the ancient passover, 
He gave to His disciples the sacrament of His Body and Blood in 
the substance of bread and wine; ... and instructed us to pass from 
carnal to spiritual things, from earthly to heavenly things, and from 
shadows to the substance '.” 

34. As for the opinion of Bertram, otherwise called Ratramnus 
or Ratramus, perhaps not rightly, it is known enough by that book 
which the emperor Charles the Bald (who loved and honoured him, 
as all good men did, for his great learning and piety) commanded 
him to write concerning the Body and Blood of our Lord. For 
when men began to be disturbed at the book of Paschasius, some 
saying one thing, and some another, the emperor, being moved by 
their disputes, propounded himself two questions to Bertram :—1. 
Whether what the faithful eat in the Church be made the Body and 
Blood of Christ in figure and in mystery? 2. Or whether that 
natural Body, which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, 
died, and was buried, and now sitteth on the right hand of God the 


4 Rabanus Maur. de Inst. Cler., 1. years after, by the maintainers of tran- 


i. 6.81]. substantiation. 

ὁ Gul. Malms., A.p. 1200; and Tho, * Anton. tit., c. 2. ὃ 3; Vincent., 
Waldens., a.p. 1400. ]. xxiv. c. 42; et alii. 

‘ That book was afterwards con- h Malms. de gestis Reg. Angl., 1. ii. 


demned under Leo IX., two hundred i De Rebus Eccl., ο. 16. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 197 


Father, be itself daily received by the mouth of the faithful in the 
mystery of the sacrament? The first of these Bertram resolved 
affirmatively, the second negatively; and said, that there was as 
great a difference betwixt those two bodies, as betwixt the earnest 
and that whereof it is the earnest. ‘‘ It is evident,”’ saith he, “ that 
that bread and wine are figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ... . 
According to the substance of the elements, they are after the conse- 
cration what they were before ; . . . for the bread is not Christ substan- 
tially. - ς .". If this mystery be not done in a figure, it cannot well be 
called a mystery. . .. The wine also, which is made the sacrament of 
the Blood of Christ by the consecration of the priest, shews one 
thing by its outward appearance, and contains another inwardly. 
For what is there visible in its outside but only the substance of the 
wine? These things are changed, but not according to the material 
part; and by this change they are not what they truly appear to be, 
but are something else besides what is their proper being. For they 
are made spiritually the Body and Blood of Christ: not that the 
elements be two different things; but in one respect they are, 
as they appear, bread and wine, and in another the Body and 
Blood of Christ. ..... Hence, according to the visible creature, 
they feed the body; but, according to the virtue of a more 
excellent substance, they nourish and sanctify the souls of the 
faithful.” Then, having brought many testimonies of Holy Scrip- 
ture and the ancient fathers to confirm this, he at last pre- 
vents that calumny which the followers of Paschasius did then lay 
on the orthodox, as though they had taught that bare signs, figures, 
and shadows, and not the Body and Blood of Christ, were given in 
the sacrament. ‘‘ Let it not be thought,” saith he, ‘“because we 
say this, that therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are not re- 
ceived in the mystery of the sacrament, where faith apprehends what 
it believes, and not what the eyes see; for this meat and drink are 
spiritual, feed the soul spiritually, and entertain that life whose ful- 
ness is eternal/.” For the question is not simply about the real 
truth, or the thing signified being present, without which it could 
not be a mystery, but about the false reality of things subsisting in 
imaginary appearances, and about the carnal presence. 

35. All this the fathers of Trent and the Romish inquisitors could 
not brook, and therefore they utterly condemned Bertram, and put 
his book in the catalogue of those that are forbidden*. But the 
professors of Douay judging this proceeding much too violent, and 
therefore more like to hurt than to advance the Roman cause, went 


} Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. par. « Index libr. prohibit. in fine Concil. 
Weare Trident. authorit. Pape editus, in lit. B. 


CHAP. 
Ve 


C HAGE: 
ve 


198 THE HISTORY 


another and more cunning way to work, and had the approbation of 
the licensers of books, and the authors of the Belgic Index Expurga- 
torius'. “That book of Bertram,” say they, “" having been already 
printed several times, read by many, and known to all by its being 
forbidden, may be suffered and used after it is corrected ; for Bertram 
was a Catholic priest, and a monk in the monastery of Corbie, 
esteemed and. beloved by Charles the Bald. And, bemg we bear 
with many errors in ancient Catholic authors, and lessen and excuse 
them, and by some cunning device” (Behold the good men’s fidelity !) 
‘often deny them, and give a more commodious sense, when they 
are objected to us in our disputes with our adversaries,—we do not 
see why Bertram should not also be amended, and used with the same 
equity, lest heretics cast us in the teeth that we burn and suppress 
those records of antiquity that make for them: and, as we also fear, 
lest not only heretics, but also stubborn Catholics, read the book 
with the more greediness, and cite it with the more confidence, 
because it is forbidden, and so it doth more harm by being prohibited 
than if it were left free.” What patch then will they sew to amend 
this in Bertram? ‘‘ Those things that differ are not the same: that 
Body of Christ which died and rose again, and is become im- 
mortal, dies no more, being eternal and impassible: but that which 
is celebrated in the Church is temporal, not eternal,—is corruptible, 
and not incorruptible.” 

To this last-mentioned passage they give a very commodious sense, 
namely, that ‘it should be understood of the corruptible species of 
the sacrament, or of the sacrament itself, and the use of it, which 
will last no longer than this world.” If this will not do, it may not 
be amiss to leave it all out,—to blot out visibly, and write invisibly. 
And this, “‘ What the creatures were in substance before the conse- 
cration, they are still the same after it,’ must be understood accord- 
that is, ‘‘the accidents of the 
bread and wine.’’ Though they confess, that ‘‘then Bertram knew 


79 


ing to “the outward appearances, 


nothing of those accidents subsisting without a substance, and many 
other things which this latter age hath added out of the Scriptures 
with as great truth as subtlety.”” How much easier had it been at 
one stroke to blot out the whole book! and so make short work with 
it, as the Spanish inquisitors™ did in their Index Expurgatorius. 
“Let the whole epistle,” say they, “of Udalricus bishop of Augs- 
burg be blotted out, concerning the single life of the clergy; and let 
the whole book of Bertram the priest about the Body and Blood of 


' Index Expurg. Belg. jussu et au- Bert. 
thorit. Philip. 1. Hisp. Reg. atque Al- ™ Index Expurg. Hispan. Ὁ. Gasp. 
bani Ducis concilio concinn., p. 54. v. | Quirogie Card. et Inquisit. Gen. in fine. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 199 


Christ be suppressed. What is this, but (as Arnobius® said against C H AP. 
the heathen) “to intercept public records, and fear the testimony of Υ: 
the truth?” For, as for that which Sixtus Senensis® and PossevinP 
affirm, that that book of the Body and Blood of the Lord was writ 
by C&colampadius under the name of Bertram, it is so great an 
untruth that a greater cannot be found. 7 

36. We are now come to the tenth century, wherein, besides Herig. 
those many sentences of catholic fathers against innovators in what on 980. 
concerns the Body and Blood of Christ, collected by Herigerus 
Abbas Lobiensis, we have also an ancient Easter homily in Saxon- 
English4, which then used to be read publicly in our churches; out 
of which we may gather what was then the doctrine received amongst 
us touching this point of religion,—but chiefly out of that part wherein 
are shewn many differences betwixt the natural Body of Christ and 
the consecrated host. For thus it teacheth the people: “There is a 
great difference betwixt that Body wherein Christ suffered, and 
that wherein the host is consecrated. That Body wherein Christ suf- 
fered was born of the Virgin Mary, consisting of blood and bones, skin 
and nerves, human members, and a rational soul; but His spiritual 
Body, which we call the host, is made of many united grains of corn, 
and hath neither blood nor bones, neither members nor soul.” 
Afterwards: ‘‘ The Body of Christ, which once died and rose again, 
shall die no more, but remains eternal and impassible ; but this host 
is temporal and corruptible, divided into parts, broken with the teeth, 
and swallowed down into the stomach. Lastly, this mystery is 
a pledge and a figure: the Body of Christ is that very truth: what 
is seen is bread, but what is spiritually understood is life.” There 
is also another sermon of Bishop Wulfinus to the clergy, bearing the 
title of a synod of priests", wherein the same opinion and doctrine is 
explained in this manner: ‘‘ That host is the Body of Christ, not 
corporally, but spiritually ; not that Body wherein He suffered, but 
that Body whereof He spake, when He consecrated the bread and 
wine into an host.” Which to this day, in the Church of England, 
we hold to be a Catholic truth. 

37. And so hitherto we have produced the agreeing testimonies 
of ancient fathers for a thousand years after Christ, and have trans- 
cribed them more at large, to make it appear to every one that is 
not blind, that the true apostolic doctrine of this mystery hath been 
universally maintained for so long by all men; some few excepted, 


ΒΘ Arnob., lib. iii. impressa Lond., et MS. in publ. Cant. 
° Sixt. Senens., pref.in Bibl.Sanct. Acad. Bibl. 
 Possevin. prol. in Appar. Sacr. τ Homil. Sacerd. Synod., impr. Lond. 


4 Hom. Pase. Angl. Sax. a.p. 990, cum Homil. Paschali. 


CHAP. 


Authors 
left out in 
the fore- 
going 
chapter, 


200 THE HISTORY 


who, more than eight hundred years after Christ, presumed to dis- 
pute against the ancient orthodox doctrine of the manner of Christ’s 
presence, and of His being received in the sacrament, though they 
durst not positively determine any thing against it. Now, what 
more concerns this point we refer to the next chapter, lest this 
should be too long. 


CHARDY Ef, 


SHEWS MORE AT LARGE THAT THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF THE PRIMITIVE 
CHURCH IS INCONSISTENT WITH TRANSUBSTANTIATION, AND ANSWERS THE 
ROMISH OBJECTIONS VAINLY ALLEGED OUT OF ANTIQUITY, 


1. Many more proofs out of ancient records might have been 
added to those we have hitherto brought, for a thousand years ; but 
we, desiring to be brief, have omitted them in each century. As in 
the first, after the Holy Scriptures, the works of Clemens Romanus’, 
commended by the papists themselves, and those of S. Ignatiust, 
bishop of Antioch and martyr, are much against transubstantiation. 
In the second likewise, 5. Theophilus", fourth bishop of Antioch 
after Ignatius; Athenagoras* and Tatianusy, scholars to Justin Martyr. 
In the third, Clemens Alexandrinus?, tutor to Origen; and Minutius 
Felix*,a Christian orator. In the fourth, Eusebius» bishop of Cesarea, 
Juvencus® a Spanish priest, Macarius A2gyptius", S. Hilary? bishop of 
Poictiers, Optatus! bishop of Milevis, Eusebius’ Emissenus, Gregorius 
Nazianzenus", Cyrillus Alexandrinus', Epiphanius* Salaminensis, S. 
Hierom!,Theophilus™ Alexandrinus,and Gaudentius® bishop of Brixia. 
In the fifth, Sedulius® a Scotch priest, Gennadius? Massiliensis, and 
Faustus? bishop of Regium. In the sixth, Fulgentius’ Africanus, 
Victor* Antiochenus, Primasiust bishop, and Procopius® Gazeus. In 


5. Const. Ap., 1. vi. ο. 28, 29. » Orat. de fun. Gorg. 
t Epist. ad Philadelph, ' In Joh., 1. iv. c. 14. 
u Ad Autol., 1. ii. k In Ancorato. 
* Legat. pro Christ. ' Contra Jovinian., et in 81 Jer., et 
¥ In Diatess. in 26 Matt. 
* De Strom., lib. i., et De Pedag., ™ Epist. Pasch. 2. 
lib. ii. » In Exod. ii, 
* In Octavio. © In Epist. 5. Paul. 


" 


> De Demonstr. Evang., 1. i. c. 10, 
et lib. viii. c. 2. 
° De Hist. Evang., 1. iv. 


De Dogm. Eeccl., ο. 25. 
Homil. iii. in Epiph. 
De Fide, cap. 16; et Ep. ad Ferrand. 


ba i} 


P Hom. 37. ® Com. in 14 Mare.” 
© In Matt. et de Synod. ' In Epist. ad Cor, 
f Contra Parm., 1. iii. ἃ In Gen. xlix. 


® Homil. de Corp. Chr. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 201 


the seventh, Hesychius* priest in Jerusalem, and Maximusy abbot of CHAP. 
Constantinople. In the eighth, Johannes Damascenus?. In the __Y!: 
ninth, Nicephorus* the patriarch, and Hinemarus® archbishop of 
Rheims. Lastly, in the tenth, Fulbert® bishop of Chartres. And, 
to complete all, to these single fathers we may add whole councils of 
them; as that of Ancyra‘, of Neocesarea®, and besides the first of 
Nice’, which I have mentioned, that of Laodicea®, of Carthage?, of 
Orleans’, the fourth of Toledo*, that of Bracara!, the sixteenth of 
Toledo™, and that of Constantinople in Trullo". Out of all these 
appears most certain, that the infection of the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation was not yet spread over the Christian world; but that the 
sound doctrine of the Body and Blood of Christ, and of their true 
(yet spiritual, not carnal,) presence in the Eucharist, with the 
elements, still the same in substance after consecration, was every- 
where owned and maintained. And, though the fathers used both 
ways of speaking, (that is, that the bread and wine are the true Body 
and Blood of Christ, and that, their substance still remaining, they 
are signs, types, resemblances, and pledges of them, images, figures, 
similitudes, representations, and samplers of them,) yet there was no 
contrariety or diversity in the sense. For they were not so faith- 
less as to believe, that these are only natural elements, or bare signs ; 
and they were not of so gross and so dull an apprehension as not to 
distinguish betwixt the sacramental and mystic, and the carnal and 
natural presence of Christ, as it is now maintained by the patrons of 
transubstantiation. For in this they understood no other change 
than that which is common to all sacraments, whereby the outward 
natural part is said to be changed into the inward and divine, only 
because it represents it truly and efficaciously, and makes all worthy 
receivers partakers thereof; and because, by the virtue of the Holy 
Spirit, and of Christ’s holy institution, the elements obtain those 
divine excellencies and prerogatives, which they cannot have of their 
- own nature. And this is it which was taught and believed for 
above a thousand years together, by pious and learned antiquity, con- 
cerning this most holy mystery. 

2. There are also some other things whereby we may understand 
that the ancients did not believe transubstantiation, or that the pre- 
sence of the Body and Blood of Christ is so inseparably tied to the 


x In Levit. i. 6. * In Act., lib. ii. c. 30. 
¥ In Hierarch. Dion. & A, 364. can. 25. 

* De Fide Orthod. h A. 397. can. 24. 

*" De Cherub., c. 6. 1 A, 541. can. 4. 

» In Vita 5. Remig. * A. 633. can. 17. 

* Epist. ad Adeodat. | A. 675. cap. 2. 

@ Anno 314, can. 2. m A. 693. cap. 6. 


* Aun. eodem, can. 13. ” A. 691. can. 32. 


202 THE HISTORY 


. accidents of bread and wine, that Christ must needs be present as 


long as those accidents retain any resemblance of bread and wine, 
even when they are not put to that use appointed by divine institu- 
tion. For it is certain that it was the custom of many of the ancients 
“to burn what remained of the bread and wine after the communion 
was ended®.’’ And who can believe that any Christian should dare 
or be willing to burn his Lord and Saviour, in Body and Blood, 
though it were never so much in his power? Doubtless it would 
have been as horrid and detestable an action as was that of the per- 
fidious Jews, for Christians, if they believed transubstantiation, to 
burn that very natural Body which the Jews crucified, and which was 
born of the Virgin Mary. Therefore those Christians who used 
anciently to burn those fragments of the bread, and remains of the 
wine, which were not spent in the celebration of the sacrament, were 
far enough from holding the present faith and doctrine of Rome. 

The same appears further by the penalty threatened by the canon 
to every clergyman, “ by whose neglect a mouse or any other creature 
should eat the sacrifice?,” (that is, the consecrated bread.) And 
who but an idiot, a man deprived of his reason, could ever believe 
that the natural Body of Christ can be gnawed and even eaten by 
rats, or any brute creatures? This sorely perplexed the first main- 
tainers of transubstantiation, who would invent any thing rather than 
own it possible, well knowing how abominable it is, and how dis- 
honourable to Christian religion. Yet this is not inconsistent with 
the now Roman faith; nay, it necessarily follows from the tenet 
of transubstantiation, that the Body of Christ may be in the belly of 
a mouse under the accidents of bread‘. And the contrary opinion is 
not only disowned now by the papists, but, under pain of excommunica- 
tion, forbidden by the pope ever to be owned"; so that they must 
believe as an article of faith what is most abhorrent to faith®. 

3. But yet, at last, let us see what props these new builders pre- 
tend to borrow from antiquity to uphold their castle in the air, tran- 
substantiation. They used indeed to scrape together many testimo- 
nies of the fathers of the first and middle age, whereby they would 
fain prove that those fathers believed and taught the transubstantiation 
of the bread and wine into the natural Body and Blood of Christ, 
just as the Roman Church at this day doth teach and believe. We 


° Hesych., ]. ii. in Levit. cap. 8. A.D. 4 Alex. de Ales, lib. iv. 4. 45. m. 1. 
600.—Concil. Ang]. Spelm. tredecimus art. 2. et q. 53. m. 3.—Thom. in 3. 4. 
inter eos qui Bede titulum preferunt, 80. art. 3; et in 4. ἃ. ix. q. 2. 

A.D. 700, et sub Edgaro Rege 38, τ Greg. XI. in Director. Inquis., p. 
ibid. A.D. 970. Umea vet ps απ 

P Cone. Arelat. 3. citat. a Gratiano 5 Vasq. disp. 195. in ὃ. δ. 5. 
de Consecr., dist. 2. a.p. 640. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 203 


will therefore briefly examine them, that it may yet more fully appear C HA P. 
that antiquity and all fathers did not in the least favour the πον. ὃ“. 
tenet of transubstantiation ; but that that true doctrine, which I have 

set down in the beginning of this book, was constantly owned and 
preserved in the Church of Christ. 

4. Now, almost all that they produce out of the fathers will be 
conveniently reduced to certain heads, that we may not be too tedi- 
ous in answering each testimony by itself. 

5. To the first head belong those that call the Eucharist the Body Answer to 
and Blood of Christ. But I answer: those fathers explain themselves ee 
in many places, and interpret those their expressions in such a man- of Iren., 
ner, that they must be understood in a mystic and spiritual sense, in ane 
that sacraments usually take the names of those things they re- Greg. 
present, because of that resemblance which they have with them, nee Ἔ 
“ποῦ by the reality of the thing, but by the signification of the mys- Austin, 
teryt,” as we have shewn before out of 5: Austin and others. For @74ethers- 
nobody can deny but that the things that are seen are signs and 
figures, and those that are not seen the Body and Blood of Christ ; 
and that therefore the nature of this mystery is such, that, when 
we receive the bread and wine, we also, together with them, 
receive at the same time the Body and Blood of Christ, which in the 
celebration of the holy Eucharist are as truly given as they are repre- 
sented. Hence came into the Church this manner of speaking,— 
the consecrated bread is Christ’s Body. 

6. We put in the second rank those places that say, that the An answer 
bishops and priests make the Body of Christ with the sacred words ἘΠΕ ἊΝ 

of their mouth, as S. Hieromu speaks in his epistle to Heliodorus, of 8. Hier. 
and 5. Ambrose*, and others. ΤῸ this I say, that at the prayer and eS 
blessing of the priest the common bread is made sacramental bread, 
which, when broken and eaten, is the communion of the Body of 
Christ, and therefore may well be called so sacramentally. For the 
‘bread (as I have often said before) doth not only represent the Body 

of our Lord, but also, being received, we are truly made partakers 

of that precious Body. For so saith S. Hierom’: ‘‘ The Body and 
Blood of Christ is made at the prayer of the priest ;” that is, the 
element is so qualified, that being received it becomes the commu- 

nion of the Body and Blood of Christ, which it could not without the 
preceding prayers. The Greeks call this, ‘“‘to prepare and to conse- 

crate the Body of the Lord.” AsS. Chrysostom saith well’: “These 

are not the works of man’s power, but still the operation of Him, 


t De Consecr., dist. 2. c. Sicut. y Epist. 85, ad Evagr. 
u Ep.ad Heliod. 2, et ad Evagr. 85. z 5. Chrysost., Hom, 83. in S. Matt. 
* De iis, qui init. myst., c. 9; &c. 


904 THE HISTORY 


C HAP. who made them in the last Supper: as for us, we are only ministers, 
VI. but He it is that sanctifies and changeth them.” 


An ee 7. In the third place, to what is brought out of the fathers con- 
to what is 


cited out 
of S.Cypr., transelementation of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, (wherein 


ap fee the papists do greatly glory, boasting of the consent of antiquity 


Cyrils, | with them,) I answer, that there is no such consequence: transub- 
Chrys. 5 ne : : 4 
"YS stantiation being another species of change, the enumeration was not 


Greg. 
Nyss., et full; for it doth not follow, that, because there is a conversion, 
aliorum. 


cerning the conversion, change, transmutation, transfiguration, and 


a transmutation, a transelementation, there should be also a transub- 
stantiation: which the fathers never so much as mentioned. For, 
because this is a sacrament, the changé must be understood to 
be sacramental also, whereby common bread and wine become the 
sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: which could not be, did 
not the substance of the bread and wine remain; for a sacrament 
consisteth of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. And so, 
because ordinary bread is changed by consecration into a bread 
which is no more of common use, but appointed by divine institution 
to be a sacramental sign whereby is represented the Body of Christ, | 
in whom dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily,—and being 
thereby dignified, having great excellencies superadded, and so made 
what it was not before,—it is therefore said by some of the fathers to 
be changed, to be made another thing. And truly that change 
is great and supernatural, but yet not substantial,—not of a substance 
which substantially ceaseth to be, into another substance which sub- 
stantially beginneth to be ; but it is a change of state and condition 
which alters not the natural properties of the element. This is also 
confirmed by Scripture, which usually describes and represents the 
conversion of men, and the supernatural change of things, as though 
it were natural, though it be not so. So those that are renewed by 
the Word, and Spirit, and Faith of Christ, are said to be regenerated, 
| John iii, converted, and transformed', to put off the old man, and put on the 


3; 1 Pet. : 
i.3; 1 Cor, ZeW man, and to be new creatures ; but they are not said to become 


τ 15; another substance, to be transubstantiated: for men thus converted 
Re ne have still the same human body, and the same rational soul as 
iv.22; before, though in a far better state and condition, as every Christian 


Gal.vi.15. _ 
val-vi 19. Will acknowledge. Nay, the fathers themselves use those words, 


transmutation, transformation, transelementation, upon other occa- 
sions, when they speak of things whose substance is neither lost nor 
changed; for those words be of so large a signification, that, though 
sometimes a substantial change is to be understood by them, yet for 
the most part they signify only a moral change, a change of quali- 
ties, of condition, of office, of use, and the like. To this sense they 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 205 


are used by the Greek fathers, (Irenzus', Clemens Alexandrinus’, 
Origen®, Cyril of Jerusalem’, Basil’, Gregory Nazianzen®, Gregory 
Nyssen’, Cyril of Alexandria*, Chrysostom ", Theodoret, Theophylact, 
and Cicumenius”’,) to express the resurrection’ of the Body, the effi- 
cacy of divine doctrine, the sanctification® of a regenerated person, 
the immortality‘ of the flesh after the resurrection, the repentance’ of 
sinners, the assumption® of the human nature in the person of Christ, 
the regeneration’ of saints, the virtue® of the divine grace, the power 
of baptism’, and the excellency of charity, and lastly the alteration” 
for the better, the greatness, usefulness, power, and dignity, of many 
things. Neither are the Latin* fathers without such kind of expres- 
sions ; for they do not make the conversion of the bread and wine 
in the Eucharist more essential or substantial, than in Baptism the 
conyersion of man born again to a new life, or (as they speak) 
whose human natural condition is changed into a nobler, a heavenly 
state, which is a moral and mystic change, and not natural or sub- 
stantial. The ancientest of them, Tertullian, said, that ‘‘God had 
promised to man the body and substance of angels; and that men 
should be transformed into angels, as angels have been transformed 
into men.”’ Now, who would infer from hence, that angels have 
been essentially changed into men; or that human bodies should be 
so transformed into an angelical substance, that they should be no 
longer men nor human bodies, but properly and essentially angels ὃ 
—which Tertullian himself is expressly against, and saith, that 
“angels were so changed into men that still they remained angels, 
without quitting their proper substance®.” As others have spoken of 
the bread in the Eucharist;—that “it so becomes the Body of 
Christ, that still it is what it was,” as 5. Ambrose; that “it 
loseth not its nature,” as Theodoret?; that the substance of the 
bread remains, as Gelasius affirms. And doubtless the same meant 
all the ancients, who, according to their way of speaking, said any 
‘thing of the change of bread and wine. For all the vouchers 
brought by the papists speak only of an accidental, mystical, 


—Idem, hom. 33. in 1 Cor. 

10 Theod. dial. 2, Theoph. in 6, S. 
Joh., et Gacum. in 1 Ep. S. Petri, c. 1; 
et alii. 

a S. Austin., lib. iv. contra Crescon. 


1 Tren., |. v. c. 10. 

2 Clem. Alex., l. iv. Strom. 

3 Orig., Serm, ii. in diversos. 

4 Cyril. Hieros., Catech. 18. 

5 Basil. Exhort. ad Bapt.; et S. 


Chrys., hom. 5. de Peenit. 

6 Greg. Naz., Orat. 40. 

7 Greg. Nyss., lib. ii. contra Eunom., 
Homil. i. de Resur., epist. ad Eustath. 
Latin, et Ambros. 

8 Cyril. Alexand., epist. Pasch. 6, 7, 
et 14. 

9 S. Chrys., hom, 23, in Acta Apost. 


cap. 54.—S. Ambr. de Myst.,c. 9; et 
de Sacr., ]. iv. c. 4.—Faust. Reg. sive 
Euseb. Emiss. de Pasch. § 5.—Fa- 
cund., J. ix. ¢. ult. 

> Contra Marcion., lib. iii. ο. 9, 24, 
26. 
© De Carne Christi, cap. 3. 
4 Superius citati. 


CSHBASE: 
VE 


Answer to 
the testi- 
monies of 
S. Chrys., 
Cyril. 
Alex., and 
others. 


206 THE HISTORY 


. and moral, nothing at all of a substantial change. Transubstantia- 


tion is taken by its defenders for a material change of one substance 
into another: we indeed allow a transmutation of the elements; but 
as for a substantial one, we vainly seek for it: it is no where to be 
found, 

8. To the fourth head I refer what the fathers say of our touching 
and seeing the Body of Christ, and drinking His Blood, in the sacra- 
ment; and thereto I answer, that we deny not but that some things 
emphatical, and even hyperbolical, have been said of the sacrament 
by Chrysostom and some others; and that those things may easily 
lead unwary men into error. ‘That was the ancient fathers’ care, as 
it is ours still, to instruct the people not to look barely on the out- 
ward elements, but in them to eye with their minds the Body and 
Blood of Christ, and with their hearts lift up to feed on that 
heavenly meat: for all the benefit of a sacrament is lost, if we look 
no farther than the elements. Hence it is that those holy men, the 
better to teach this lesson to their hearers, and move their hearts 
more efficaciously, spake of the signs as if they had been the thing 
signified, and, like orators, said many things which will not bear a 
literal sense, nor a strict examen. Such is this of an uncertain 
author under the name of 5. Cyprian: “‘ We are close to the Cross, 
we suck the Blood, and we put our tongues in the very wounds of 
our Redeemer; so that both outwardly and inwardly we are made 
red thereby®.”” Such is that of 5. Chrysostom: ‘In the sacra- 
ment the Blood is drawn out of the side of Christ?;” ‘the tongue 
is made bloody with that wonderful Blood®.” Again: ‘ Thou 
seest thy Lord sacrificed, and the crowding multitude round about 
sprinkled with His Blood: He that sits above with the Father is at 
the same time in our hands®.” ‘Thou dost see, and touch, and 
eat Him'.” ‘ For I do not shew thee either angels or archangels, but 
the Lord of them Himself*.” Again: ‘“ He incorporates us with 
Himself, as if we were but the same thing: He makes us His Body. 
indeed, and suffers us not only to see, but even to touch, to eat Him, 
and to put our teeth in His Flesh; so that, by that food which He 
gives us, we become His flesh.” Such is that of S. Austin: 
«Let us give thanks, not only that we are made Christians, but also 
made Christ™.” Lastly, such is that of B. Leo: ‘In that mystical 
distribution it is given us to be made His Flesh®.” Certainly, if any 
man would wrangle and take advantage of these, he might thereby 


€ Serm. de Cen. Dom. k Hom. 24. 1 Cor. 

f Hom. in Encen. 1 Hom. 45. in Joh., et 83. in Matt. 
& Hom. 82 in Matt. ™ Tract. xxi. in Johan. 

h Lib. de Sacerd. iii. n Epist. 23. 


i Hom. 51, et 83 in Matt. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 207 


maintain, as well that we are transubstantiated into Christ, and 
Christ’s Flesh into the bread, as that the bread and wine are transub- 
stantiated into His Body and Blood. But protestants, who scorn to 
play the sophisters, interpret these and the like passages of the 
fathers with candour and ingenuity, (as it is most fitting they should. ) 
For the expressions of preachers, which often have something of a 
paradox, must not be taken according to that harsher sound where- 
with they at first strike the auditors’ ears. The fathers spake not 
of any transubstantiated bread, but of the mystical and consecrated, 
when they used those sorts of expressions; and that for these 
reasons: 1. That they might extol and amplify the dignity of this 
mystery, which all true Christians acknowledge to be very great 
and peerless: 2. That communicants might not rest in the out- 
ward elements, but seriously consider the thing represented, whereof 
they are most certainly made partakers, if they be worthy receivers : 
3. And lastly, that they might approach so great a mystery with the 
more zeal, reverence, and devotion. And, that those hyperbolic ex- 
pressions are thus to be understood, the fathers themselves teach 
clearly enough, when they come to interpret them. 

9. Lastly, being the same holy fathers, who (as the manner is to 
discourse of sacraments) speak sometimes of the bread and wine in 
the Lord’s Supper as if they were the very Body and Blood of Christ, 
do also very often call them types, elements, signs, the figure of the 
Body and Blood of Christ,—from hence it appears most manifestly, 
that they were of the protestants’, and not of the papists’ opinion. 
For we can, without prejudice to what we believe of the sacrament, 
use those former expressions which the papists believe do most 
favour them, if they be understood, as they ought to be, sacramen- 
tally. But the latter none can use, but he must thereby overthrow 
the groundless doctrine of transubstantiation ; these two,—the bread 
is transubstantiated into the Body, and the bread also is the type, the 
' sign, the figure of the Body of Christ,—being wholly inconsistent. 
For it is impossible that a thing that loseth its being should yet be 
the sign and representation of another; neither can any thing be the 
type and the sign of itself. 

10. But if, without admitting of a sacramental sense, the words 
be used too rigorously, nothing but this will follow, that the bread 
and wine are really and properly the very Body and Blood of Christ ; 
which they themselves disown that hold transubstantiation. There- 
fore in this change it is not a newness of substance, but of use and 
virtue, that is produced; which yet the fathers acknowledged, with 
us, to be wonderful, supernatural, and proper only to God’s omnipo- 
tency: for that earthly and corruptible meat cannot become to us a 


ΟἼΑΡΕ: 
ΨΩ: 


CHAP. 


Answer to 
single tes- 
timony of 
Fathers. 


208 THE HISTORY 


spiritual and heavenly, the communion of the Body and Blood of 
Christ, without God’s especial power and operation. And, whereas 
it is far above philosophy and human reason, that Christ from 
heaven (where alone He is locally) should reach down to us the 
divine virtue of His Flesh, so that we are made one Body with Him, 
therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable that the fathers should 
tell us, that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the Son of 
God, when He saith, ‘‘ This is My Body;” and that we ought not 
to measure this high and holy mystery by our narrow conceptions, 
or by the course of nature. For it is more acceptable to God with 
an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace the words of 
Christ, than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper sense, 
and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the 
capacity of men and angels. Thus much in general may suffice to 
answer those places of the fathers which are usually brought in the 
behalf of transubstantiation. He that would have a larger refutation 
of those objections fetched from antiquity, may read Hospinianus his 
History of the Sacrament®, and Antonius de Dominis in his fifth 
book of the Christian Commonwealth, chap. vi.?, and in his detec- 
tion of the errors of Suarez, chap. 1]. 

11. That place of Ignatius cited by Theodoretq out of the epistle 
to the Smyrnenses, (where now it is not to be found,) and objected 
by some of the Romish faith, ‘“‘ That the heretics, Simoniani and 
Menandriani, would have no eucharistical oblations, because they 
denied the sacrament to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,” 
makes nothing for transubstantiation, as Bellarmine himself confess- 
eth. ‘‘ For,” saith he, “those heretics did not oppose the sacrament 
of the Eucharist, so much as the mystery of the incarnation; and 
therefore (as Ignatius shews in that place) they would deny that the 
Eucharist is the Flesh of Christ ; that is, (as Theodoret, interprets it,) 
that the divine mysteries of bread and wine should be the signs of a 
real Body of Christ truly existing, because they would not own that 
Christ had taken flesh.” And so, lest they should be forced to ac- 
knowledge the reality of the Flesh of Christ, they would wholly reject 
the signs and sacraments of it ; for, the signs of the Body being given, 
the true Body is given also, because the substance and the type infer 
one another, and a phantasm or illusion is not capable of a sign or 
representation. 

12. The words out of Justin Martyr, whereby they would prove 
transubstantiation, do strongly disprove it. ‘“ For,” saith he, “as by 

° Lib. ii. et iv. Tr Dial. ii. 


P A sect. 1, usque ad 18. 5 De Euchar., 1.1. c. 1. 
4 Dial, 8, ex Epist. v. Ignat. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 209 


the word of God our Saviour was incarnate, so by the prayers of CHAP. 
God’s word the Eucharist is made, whereby our bodies are nourished, ἘΠ 
the Body and Blood of Christ'.” Now, when Christ took human 

flesh, none could say without heresy that He was transubstantiated. 

13. Neither is that against the protestants, which is brought out 

of 5. Cyprian (though it be none of his,) of ‘the bread changed 

not in appearance, but in nature".’’ For he, whoever it was, took 

not the word nature in a strict sense, or else he was contrary to 
Theodoret, Gelasius, and others above mentioned, who expressly 

deny that the bread should be thus changed ; but at large, as nature 

is taken for use, qualities, and condition. For by the infinite power 

of the Word the nature of the bread is so changed, that what was 
before a bare element becomes now a divine sacrament, but without 

any transubstantiation; as appears by what follows in the same 
period, “of the human and Divine natures of Christ :’” where the 
manhood is not substantially changed into the Godhead, except we 

will follow Eutyches the heretic. 

14. The words of Cyril, as the Roman doctors say’, are so clear 

for them, that they admit of no evasion: ‘ For,” saith he, ‘‘ He that 
changed once the water into wine, is He not worthy to be believed 

that He changed the wine into blood? Therefore let us with all 
certainty receive the Body and Blood of Christ ; for His Body under 

the appearance of the bread, and His Blood under the appearance of 

the wine, are given to thee™.’’ Indeed, protestants do freely grant, 

and firmly believe, that the wine (as hath often been said) is changed Sensu jam 
into the Blood of Christ ; but every change is not a transubstantia- πόθος 
tion ; neither doth Cyril say that this change is like that of the 
water, for then it would also appear to our senses: but that He, who 
changed the water sensibly, can also change the wine sacramentally, 

will not be doubted by any. As for what he calls the appearances 

of bread and wine, he doth not thereby exclude, but rather include 
their substance, and mean the bread and wine itself: for so he inti- 
mates by what there follows: ‘‘ Do not look on them as bare bread 

and wine:” as much as to say, It is bread indeed, but yet not bare 
bread, but something besides. But that this conversion of the 

water and wine makes nothing for transubstantiation, may be thus 

made to appear. That God’s omnipotency can change one substance 

into another, none will deny; and we see it done by Christ in the 

town of Cana of Galilee, when He changed the water into wine ; and 

it was a true and proper transubstantiation. But the papists in the 


τ Apolog. ii. ad Anton. Imp. τ Bellarm. de Euchar., 1. 11. ¢. 13. 
« Serm. de Cen. Dom. ¥ Cyril. Hieros.,Catech, Mystag., iv. 


COSIN. Ῥ 


210 THE HISTORY 


. Lord’s Supper tell us of quite another change, which, if well consi- 


dered, cannot so much as be understood. For the substance of the 
bread is not changed into another that had no being, but, as they 
say, the bread is changed into that Body of Christ which really 
existed and had a being these many hundred years, ever since the 
Incarnation ; whereas that very wine which Christ made of the water 
was not in being before the change which He wrought. Now it is 
easy for any to understand, that He who created all things out of 
nothing can well make a new wine of water, or any other thing ; but 
it is more than absurd, that the Body of Christ, or any other sub- 
stance already in being, perfect and complete, should be made afresh 
of another substance, when it really subsisted before. Which they 
well understood who advised an adduction, or bringing of the Body 
of Christ into the place of the bread, and that is as much as to deny 
transubstantiation ; except it can be said, that a man is transubstan- 
tiated into another as often as he comes into his place, which no man 
in his right wits can fancy. 

15. 5. Ambrose said also, that ‘‘ the nature is changed*;” and 
indeed it is so: for other is the nature of the element, and other that 
of the sacrament; neither do protestants deny, that ‘‘ the element is 
changed by the blessing,” so that the bread, being made sacred, ‘‘is 
no more that which nature formed, but that which the blessing con- 
secrated, and, by consecrating, changed.’’ Meanwhile 8. Ambrose 
in that place doth not make the words or blessing of Christ to have 
any other operation than to make that, which was, still to be, and 
yet to be changed. Therefore the bread is not made the Body 
of Christ by transubstantiation, but by a sacramental change. He 
adds: ‘‘ That sacrament which thou receivest is made by the word of 
Christ: and, if the word of Elias had so much power as to bring 
down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be efficacious 
enough to change the properties of the elements? Thou hast read 
of the creation of all things ; that He said the word, and it was done: 
and shall not that word of Christ, which made all out of nothing, 
change that, which is already, into that which it was not ? Thou thyself 
wert, but wert the old man; but, being baptized, thou art now 
become a new creature. Now it is as much to give a new nature, 
as to change the nature of a thing.” By these words he plainly 
declares his opinion, that by virtue of this change the elements of 
bread and wine cease not to be what they are by essence, and yet by 
the consecration are made what before they were not. But where 
did our transubstantiators learn out of S. Ambrose, or any of the 


* De Sacram., lib. iv. c. 4; et De init. Myst., c. ix. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 211 


fathers, that to make the sacrament is the same as to bring the 
natural Body of Christ and put it under the accidents of the bread, 
or in the place of its substance which is vanished away? They say, 
that ‘‘ the comparison betwixt the things changed by Christ and the 
prophet would be silly, if there be no more than a sacramental 
change in the Eucharist” ;” as though the sacramental change were 
a thing of nought: “for,” saith Cardinal Bellarmine, ‘‘ what power 
is there required to do nothing??” But protestants answer, that 
the greatness, majesty, excellency, and dignity of the sacrament 
is such, that they admire no less the omnipotency of God in sancti- 
fying the creatures to so high an office and so holy an use, than in 
creating the world out of nothing, or changing the nature of things 
by the ministry of His prophets. For it is not by man’s power, but 
by the Divine virtue, that things earthly and mean of themselves are 
made to us assured pledges of the Body and Blood of Christ. And, 
if they urge the letter of those words of S. Ambrose, “‘ By the word 
of Christ the species of the elements are changed,” as Bellarmine 
and others do, why then they must confess that not only the sub- 
stance, but also the species or accidents (as they call them) of the 
bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. 
And so, being S. Ambrose and all the ancients said indifferently, as 
well that the species of the bread and wine as that the bread and wine 
themselves are changed, who will not from hence understand that 
the groundless fabric of transubstantiation (whereby they would have 
the substance of the elements so abolished in the sacrament, that 
their mere accidents or appearances remain without any subject) is 
strongly battered and utterly ruined ? 

16. All other testimonies of the fathers, if they say, that “ the 
bread is made the Body of Christ,” are willingly owned by protes- 
tants; for they hold that the element cannot become a sacrament, 
nor the sacrament have a being, without the thing which it repre- 
sents: for the Cardinal himself will not affirm that the Body of 
Christ is produced out of the bread. This is, therefore, what we 
say with S. Austin, and endeavour to prove by all means :—‘‘ That 
the sacrifice of the Eucharist is made of two things, the visible 
element and the invisible Flesh and Blood of Christ, as the Person 
of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and manhood, He being true 
God and true man: for every compound retains the nature of that 
whereof it is made: now the sacrament is composed of two things, 
the sign and the thing signified, that is, the Body of Christ*.” 


¥Y Bellarm. loco citato. 2 De Euch., lib, ii. ο. 9. 
® De Consecr., dist. 2. e. Hoe est. 


p 2? 


~ 


CHAP. 
Vee 


The rest 
of the 
Fathers. 


2)2 THE HISTORY 


17. Let the champions of transubstantiation strut and vapour now, 
with their two-and-thirty stout seconds”, who have stood for them, as 
they say, before the time of Pope Innocent the Third. For what 
Innocent the Third decreed®, and the council of Trent defined 4,—“ that 
it was ever the persuasion of the Catholic Church, that the bread is so 
changed into the Body of Christ, that, the substance of the bread 
vanishing away, only the Flesh of Christ should remain under the 
accidents of the bread,’’—is so far from being true, that the doctrine 
of transubstantiation, not only as to the name, but as to the thing 
itself, is wholly destitute of the patronage of antiquity, and left to 
shift for itself. Alphonsus ἃ Castro® said, that in ancient writers 
mention was made very seldom of transubstantiation: had he said 
never, it had been more true. For so our Jesuits in England con- 
fessed, that ‘‘ the business of transubstantiation was not so much as 
touched by the ancient fathers‘ ;”’ which is very true, as will appear 
more at large in the following chapter. 


CHAP.-VIL. 


OF THE WRITERS OF THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURY, FROM WHOM WE 
MAY EASILY DEDUCE AND TRACE THE HISTORY OF PAPAL TRANSUBSTANTIA- 
TION. 1. WHAT MANNER OF POPES THEY WERE IN THOSE TIMES. 2. THE 
UNHAPPY AGE, WHEREIN DIVINES WERE DIVIDED ABOUT THE POINT OF THE 
EUCHARIST. 9. THE OPINION OF FULBERTUS. 4. FOLLOWED BY HIS DISCIPLE 
BERENGARIUS, WHO IS OPPOSED BY OTHERS. 9, 6. THE DOCTRINE OF BEREN- 
GARIUS DEFENDED. 7. THE ROARING OF LEO IX. AGAINST BERENGARIUS. 
8. THE SYNOD OF TOURS UNDER VICTOR If., WHICH CLEARED BERENGARIUS 
AS FREE FROM ERROR. 9. POPE NICHOLAS II. GATHERS ANOTHER SYNOD 
AGAINST BERENGARIUS, WHO IS FORCED TO MAKE A WONDROUS KIND OF RE- 
CANTATION. 10. THE AUTHORS OF THE ORDINARY GLOSS CENSURE THE RE- 
CANTATION IMPOSED ON BERENGARIUS. 11]. HE SAITH THAT HE WAS VIO- 
LENTLY COMPELLED TO MAKE IT FOR FEAR OF BEING PUT TO DEATH. LAN- 
FRANCUS AND GUITMUNDUS WRITE AGAINST HIM. 12. OF POPE HILDEBRAND 
AND HIS ROMAN COUNCIL, WHEREIN BERENGARIUS WAS AGAIN CITED AND 
CONDEMNED IN VAIN. 13. THE DOCTRINE OF 5. BERNARD APPROVED. 14 
THE OPINION OF RUPERTUS. 15. LOMBARD COULD DEFINE NOTHING OF THE 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION OF THE BREAD, AND REASONS POORLY UPON THE IN- 
DEPENDENCY OF THE ACCIDENTS. 16. OTHO FRISINGENSIS AND THOSE OF 


» Card. Bellarm., de Euch. 1. iii. c. 20. * Lib. viii. contr. Hereses, Indulg. 
¢ Extra, de Trin. et Fide Cathol. f Discurs. modest. de Jesuit., p. 13; 
ο. 1. et Wats. Quodl., 1. ii. art. 4. 


Sess. xiii. ο, 4. 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 213 


HIS TIME CONFESSED THAT THE BREAD AND WINE REMAIN IN THE EUCHA- 
RIST. 17. P. BLESENSIS AND S. EDUENSIS WERE THE FIRST THAT USED THE 
WORD OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 18. OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY, 
WHEREIN POPE INNOCENT Ili. PUBLISHED HIS DECREE OF THE TRANSUBSTAN- 
TIATION OF THE BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. 
19, 20. THE WONDERFUL PRIDE OF INNOCENT III. THE LATERAN COUNCIL 
DETERMINED NOTHING CONCERNING THAT POINT. 21. THE CRUELTY OF THE 
SAME INNOCENT, WHO BY THE RACK AND THE FIRE SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH 
HIS NEW DOCTRINE. 22. WHAT GERSON SAID OF THE ROMAN CHURCH IN HIS 
TIME. MANY MORE INVENTIONS PROCEED FROM TRANSUBSTANTIATION. IN- 
EXTRICABLE AND UNHEARD-OF QUESTIONS. 23. NEW ORDERS OF MONKS AND 
OF THE SCHOOLMEN. 24. OF THEIR FINE WRANGLING AND DISPUTING. 26. 
THE SACRAMENT ABUSED MOST GROSSLY BY THE PATRONS OF TRANSUBSTAN- 
TIATION. 26, 27. HOLKOT, AQUINAS, ALBERTUS MAGNUS, AND OTHER SCHOOL- 
MEN, THOUGH SOMETIMES THEY BE NOT FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION, YET 
THEY WHOLLY SUBMIT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE POPE. 28. OF THE COUNCIL 
OF CONSTANCE, WHICH TOOK THE CUP FROM THE LAITY. 29. CARDINAL CA- 
MERACENSIS DENIES THAT TRANSUBSTANTIATION CAN BE PROVED BY HOLY 
SCRIPTURE. 30. OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE, AND THE INSTRUCTION OF 
THE ARMENIANS BY POPE EUGENIUS Iv. 8]. THE PAPAL CURSE IN THE 
COUNCIL OF TRENT NOT TO BE FEARED. THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOOK. 


1. We have proved it before, that the leprosy of transub- Ὁ HA P. 
stantiation did not begin to spread over the body of the Church pase 
im a thousand years after Christ. But at last the thousand 
years being expired, and Satan loosed out of his prison, to go and 
deceive the nations, and compass the camp of the saints about, then 
to the great damage of Christian peace and religion, they began here 
and there to dispute against the clear, constant, and universal con- 
sent of the fathers, and to maintain the new-started opinion. It is 
known to them that understand history, what manner of times were 
then, and what were those bishops who then governed the Church of 
Rome,—Sylvester IT., John XIX. and XX., Sergius IV., Benedictus 
VIII., John XXI., Benedict IX., Sylvester III., Gregory VI., Da- 
masus II., Leo IX., Nicolas II., Gregory VII. or Hildebrand,—who 
tore to pieces the Church of Rome with grievous schisms, cruel wars, 
and great slaughters*®. For the Roman pontificate was come to that 
pass, that, good men being put by, they whose life and doctrine was 
pious being oppressed, none could obtain that dignity but they that 
could bribe best and were most ambitious. 

2. In that unhappy age the learned were at odds about the presence 
of the Body of Christ in the sacrament; some defending the ancient 
doctrine of the Church, and some the new-sprung-up opinion. 

3. Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, was tutor to Berengarius, whom Fulbert, 


we shall soon have occasion to speak of; and his doctrine was alto- ee 


ε Card. Baron., tom. x. Annal., an. 897, ὃ 4.—Gilb. Genebr., Chron. sub A.D.1010. 
init. seculi x. 


ΟσΈΡΑΤΕΣ 
ΨΈΕΙΞ 


Bereng., 
Archdea- 
con of 
Angers, 
A.D.1030. 


) ee bea« 
tus,’”’ in 
Lat. | 

3[ “‘ditat.’? ] 


914 THE HistoRY 


gether conformable to that of the primitive Church, as appears clearly 
out of his epistle to Adeodatus; wherein he teacheth, that “the 
mystery of faith in the Eucharist is not to be looked on with our 
bodily eyes, but with the eyes of our mind: for what appears out- 
wardly bread and wine is made inwardly the Body and Blood of 
Christ; not that which is tasted with the mouth, but that which is 
relished by the heart’s affection. Therefore,” saith he, “prepare the 
palate of thy faith, open the throat of thy hope, and enlarge the 
bowels of thy charity, and take that bread of life, which is the food of 
the inward man.” Again: ‘‘The perception of a divine taste pro- 
ceeds from the faith of the inward man, whilst, by receiving the 
saving sacrament, Christ is received into the soul®.’’ All this is 
against those who teach in too gross a manner, that Christ in this 
mystery enters carnally the mouth and stomach of the receivers. 

4. Fulbert was followed by Berengarius his scholar, archdeacon of 
Angers in France, a man of great worth by the holiness both of his 
life and doctrine, as Platina, Vincentius Bergomensis, and many more, 
witness. This encomium, writ soon after his death by Hildebert, 
bishop of Mans, a most learned man, is thus recorded by our William 
of Malmesbury. 


“That Berengarius, who was so admired, 
Although his name yet lives, is now expired ; 
He outlives himself, yet a sad fatal day 
Him from the Church and State did snatch away. 
O dreadful day, why didst thou play the thief, 
And fill the world with ruin and with grief ? 
For by his death the Church, the laws, and all 
The clergy’s glory, do receive a fall. 
His sacred wisdom was too great for fame, 
And the whole world’s too little for his name ; 
Which to its proper zenith none can raise, 
His merits do so far exceed all praise. 
Then surely thou art blest!, nor dost thou less 
Heaven with thy soul, earth with thy body bless’. 
When I go hence, O may I dwell with thee 
In thine appointed place, where’er it be'!”” 


Now this Berengarius was not only archdeacon of Angers, but also 
the scholasticus, or master of the chair, of the same church, ; ‘‘ which 
dignity is ever enjoyed by the chancellor of the university, for his 
office is in great churches to teach the clergy, and instruct them in 
sound doctrine!.” All this I have produced more at large, to manifest 


 Epist. ad Adeodat., inter alia ejus * A. Thevet, Vit. illust. Vir., 1. iii. 
Opera impressa Paris. ann. 1608. ΟΣ 62, 
' Guliel. Malms. De Gestis Regum ' Pap. Mass. Annal. Frane., 110. iii. 


Anglorum, lib. iii. 


ee 


OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 915 


the base and injurious calumnies cast upon this worthy and famous 
man by later writers; as John Garetius™ of Louvain, William Alan™ 
our countryman, and others: who not only accuse him of being an 
heretic, but also a worthless and an unlearned man. 

5. Berengarius stcod up valiantly in defence of that doctrine 
which 170 years before was delivered out of God’s word and the 
holy fathers, in France by Bertram and John Erigena, and by others 
elsewhere, against those who taught that in the Eucharist neither bread 
nor wine remained after the consecration. Yet he did not either be- 
lieve or teach, (as many falsely and shamelessly have imputed to him,) 
that nothing more is received in the Lord’s Supper but bare signs 
only, or mere bread and wine ; but he believed and openly professed, as 
S. Austin and other faithful doctors of the Church had taught out of 
God’s word, that in this mystery the souls of the faithful are truly 
fed by the true Body and Blood of Christ to life eternal. Neverthe- 
less it was neither his mind nor his doctrine, that the substance of the 
bread and wine is reduced to nothing, or changed into the substance 
of the natural Body of Christ, or (as some then would have had the 
Church believe) that Christ Himself comes down carnally from heaven. 
Entire books he wrote upon this subject; but they have been wholly 
suppressed by his enemies, and now are not to be found. Yet what 
we have of him in his greatest enemy, Lanfrank, I here set down: 
“‘ By the consecration at the Altar the bread and wine are made a 
sacrament of religion, not to cease to be what they were, but to be 
changed into something else, and to become what they were not :’— 
agreeable to what S. Ambrose had taught. Again: ‘* There are two 
parts in the sacrifice of the Church, (this is according to S. [renzus,) 
the visible sacrament, and the invisible thing of the sacrament, that 
is, the Body of Christ.’’ Item: ‘‘ The bread and wine which are 
consecrated remain in their substance, having a resemblance with 
that whereof they are a sacrament, for else they could not be a sacra- 


᾿ ment.” Lastly: ‘‘ Sacraments are visible signs of divine things, but 
) Ξ gs, 


in them the invisible things are honoured®.” ΑἹ] this agrees well 
with S. Austin and other fathers above cited. 

6. He did not, therefore, by this his doctrine exclude the Body of 
Christ from the sacrament ; but in its right administration he joined 
together the thing signified with the sacred sign, and taught that 
the Body of Christ was not eaten with the mouth in a carnal way, 
but with the mind, and soul, and spirit. Neither did Berengarius 
alone maintain this orthodox and ancient doctrine: for Sigibert?, 


™ Garet. De vera Present. in Epist. ° Extant apud Lanfr., De verit. Corp. 
nuncup., et Clas. v., an. 1040. Dom. in Euch. 
" Alan. De Euchar., 1. i. c. 21. P Chron. a Mirzo editum. 


ΘΈΑ: 


Wik 


CHAP: 
VIL. 


Conc. Ver. 
sub Leone 
Papa IX. 
A.D.1050. 


Cone. Tu- 
ron. sub 
Vict. 
Papa II. 
A.D.1055. 


Cone. 
Rom. sub 
Nicol. 
Papa II. 
A.D.1058. 


216 THE HISTORY 


William of Malmesbury4, Matthew Paris’, and Matthew of West- 
minster, make it certain that ‘“‘almost all the French, Italians, and 
English, of those times were of the same opinion; and that many 
things were said, writ, and disputed in its defence,” by many men ; 
amongst whom was Bruno, then bishop of the same church of 
Angers'. Now this greatly displeaseth the papal faction, who took 
great care that those men’s writings should not be delivered to pos- 
terity; and now do write, that the doctrine of Berengarius, owned by 
the fathers, and maintained by many famous nations, skulked only in 
some dark corner or other. 

7. The first pope who opposed himself to Berengarius was Leo 
the Ninth, a plain man indeed, but too much led by Humbert and 
Hildebrand. For, as soon as he was desired, he pronounced sen- 
tence of excommunication against Berengarius absent and unheard" ; 
and, not long after, he called a council at Verceil, wherein John 
Erigena and Berengarius were condemned” upon this account, that 
they should say, that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are only 
bare signs*; which was far from their thoughts, and farther yet 
from their belief. This roaring, therefore, of the lion frighted not 
Berengarius; nay, the Gallican churches’ did also oppose the pope 
and his synod of Verceil, and defend with Berengarius the oppressed 
truth. 

8. To Leo succeeded Pope Victor the Second, who, seeing that 
Berengarius could not be cast down and crushed by the fulminations 
of his predecessor, sent his legate Hildebrand into France, and called 
another council at Tours, where Berengarius, being cited, did freely 
appear, and whence he was freely dismissed, after he had given it 
under his hand, that the bread and wine in the sacrifice of the Church 
are not shadows and empty figures; and that he held none other but 
the common doctrine of the Church concerning the sacrament. For 
he did not alter his judgment, (as modern papists give out,) but he 
persisted to teach and maintain the same doctrine as before, as Lan- 
frank complains of him. 

9. Yet his enemies would not rest satisfied with this; but they 
urged Pope Nicholas the Second, who (within a few months that 
Stephen the Tenth sat) succeeded Victor without the emperor’s 
consent, to call a new council at Rome against Berengarius. For, 
that sensual manner of presence by them devised, to the great dis- 
honour of Christ, being rejected by Berengarius, and he teaching, 


4 In Contin. Bede. v But it was about 200 years after 
* In Hist. Majori, ad an. 1087. the death of this most innocent man. 

* Ad eundem annum. * Adelm, in Epist. ad Bereng. 

' Baron. ad an. 1035, ὃ J, 6. 7 Those of Rennes, Anjou, Leon, 
u 


Lanfrane. in libro citato. Dola, and Maclo, ὅτ. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. »ηὕγι 


as he did before, that the Body of Christ was not present in such a 
sort as that it might be at pleasure brought in and out, taken into 
the stomach, cast on the ground, trod under foot, and bit or devoured 
by any beasts, they falsely charged him as if he had denied that it 
is present at all. An hundred and thirteen bishops came to the 
council, to obey the pope’s mandate; Berengarius came also; 
‘“‘and,” (as Sigonius* and Leo Ostiensis* say,) ‘‘ when none present 
could withstand him, they sent for one Albericus, a monk of Mont 
Cassin, made cardinal by Pope Stephen,’”’ who, having asked seven 
days’ time to answer in writing, brought at last his scroll against 
Berengarius. The reasons and arguments used therein to convince 
his antagonist are not now extant; but, whatever they were, Beren- 
garius was commanded presently, without any delay, to recant” in 
that form prescribed and appointed by Cardinal Humbert, which was 
thus®: “1 Berengarius &c. ... assent to the holy Roman and Apo- 
stolic see, and with my heart and mouth do profess that I hold that 
faith concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Table which our lord and 
venerable pope Nicholas, and this sacred council, have determined 
and imposed upon me by their evangelie and apostolic authority ; to 
wit, that the bread and wine, which are set on the Altar, are not after 
the consecration only a sacrament, sign, and figure, but also the very 
Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ :” (thus far it is well enough ; 
but what follows is too horrid, and is disowned by the papists them- 
selves;) ‘‘and that they” (the Body and Blood) ‘‘ are touched and 
broken with the hands of the priests, and ground with the teeth of 
the faithful, not sacramentally only, but in truth and sensibly.”” This 
is the :prescript of the recantation imposed on Berengarius, and by 
him at first rejected, but by imprisonment and threats, and fear of 
being put to death, at last extorted from him?. 

10. This form of recantation is to be found entire in Lanfrank’, 
Algerus‘, and Gratian®; yet the glosser on Gratian, John Semeca", 
‘marks it with this note; ‘ Except you understand well the words of 
Berengarius,”’ (he should rather have said, of Pope Nicholas and 
Cardinal Humbertus,) ‘‘ you shall fall into a greater heresy than his 
was ; for he exceeded the truth‘, and spake hyperbolically.””. And so 
Richard de Mediavilla: ‘‘ Berengarius, being accused, overshot him- 
self in his justification!.”’ _But the excess of his words should be as- 


* De Regn. Ital., 1. ix. ad an. 1059. _ scripsit initium. 


® In Chron. Cassin,, 1. iii. ο. 33. ADs 1.. Cat 18: 

» Baron. ad an. 1059, ὃ 18. ® Ubi supra. 

© Habetur apud Gratian., De Con- h Ine. Ego Bereng. De Consecrat. 
secr., Dist. ii. cap. 42. Dist. ii. 

4 Pap. Mass., Annal. Franc., 1. iii. i Inc. Utrum sub figura, 72. 


¢ Sub libri quem contra Bereng. ὁ Tn iy. Dist. 9. prin. 1. q. 1. 


C'HVASP: 
VIE 


A.D.1059. 


CHAIRS 


ὙΠ: 


Concil. 
Rom. sub 
Hild. 
Papa, 
A.D.1079. 


218 THE HISTORY 


cribed to those who prescribed and forced them upon him. Yet in 
all this we hear nothing of transubstantiation. 

11. Berengarius at last escaped out of this danger, and, conscious 
to himself of having denied the truth, took heart again, and refuted 
in writing his own impious and absurd recantation, and said, that 
“‘ by force it was extorted from him by the church of malignants, the 
council of vanity.” Lanfrank of Caen, at that time head of a monas- 
tery in France, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, and Guitmundus 
Aversanus, answered him. And though it is not to be doubted but 
that Berengarius, and those of his party, writ and replied again and 
again, yet so well did their adversaries look to it, that nothing of 
theirs remains, save some citations in Lanfrank. But it were to be 
wished that we had now the entire works of Berengarius, who was a 
learned man, and a constant follower of antiquity; for out of them 
we might know with more certainty how things went, than we can 
out of what his professed enemies have said. 

12. This sacramental debate ceased a while, because of the tu- 
mults of war raised in Apulia and elsewhere by Pope Nicholas the 
Second; but it began again as soon as Hildebrand, called Gregory 
the Seventh, came to the papal chair. For Berengarius was cited 
again to a new council at Rome, ‘‘ where, some being of one opinion, 
and some of another,” (as it is in the acts of that council, writ by 
those of the pope’s faction,) his cause could not be so entirely op- 
pressed but that some bishops were still found to uphold it. Nay, 
the ring-leader himself, Hildebrand, is said to have doubted, 
‘whether what we received at the Lord’s Table be indeed the Body 
of Christ by a substantial conversion'.” But three months’ space 
having been granted to Berengarius™, and a fast appointed to the 
cardinals, “‘ that God would shew by some sign from heaven” (which 
yet He did not) ‘who was in the right, the pope or Berengarius, © 
concerning the Body of the Lord ®,”’ at last the business was decided 
without any oracle from above, and a new form of retractation im- 
posed on Berengarius®, whereby he was henceforth forward to con- 
fess, under pain of the pope’s high displeasure, ‘‘that the mystic 
bread” (first made magical and enchanting by Hildebrand?) ‘‘is 
substantially turned into the true and proper9 Flesh of Christ :’’ which 
whether he ever did is not certain. For though Malmesbury tell us, 


* Excus. cum Lanfran. libro, et ° Habetur ista formula apud Tho. 
apud Binium. Waldens., tom. ii. ec. 42; et in Registr. 
1 Engilb. Archiep. Trevir., apud Greg, VII. 
Goldast. Imp., tom. i. » Brix. Syn. Epise. apud Abb. Urs- 
™ Bertold. Constant. in Chron, an. perg. in Chron. ad an. 1080. 


1079. 4 Addit formula prescripta:... ‘in 
" Benno Card. in vita Hildebr. proprietate nature,” 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 219 


“that he died in that Roman faith',” yet there are ancienter than he*, CHAP. 
who say, that “‘ he was never converted from his first opiniont.”” And 5ε... 
some relate, that, ‘“‘after this last condemnation, having given over 
his studies, and given to the poor all he had, he wrought with his 
own hands for his living". Other things related of him, by some 
slaves of the Roman see, deserve no credit. These things happened, 
as we have said, in the year 1079; and soon after Berengarius died. 

13. Berengarius being dead, the orthodox and ancient doctrine 
of the Lord’s Supper, which he maintained, did not die with him, (as 
the Chronicon CassinenseY would have it;) for it was still constantly 
retained by S. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, who lived about the be- S. Bern. 
ginning of the twelfth century. In his discourse on the Lord’s seat 
Supper*, he joins together ‘‘ the outward form of the sacrament,” and 
“the spiritual efficacy of it,” as the shell and the kernel, the sacred 
sign and the thing signified: the one he takes out of the words of 
the institution, and the other out of Christ’s sermon in the sixth of 
S. John. And in the same place, explaining that sacraments are not 
“things absolute’ in themselves, without any relation, but mysteries 
wherein, by the gift of a visible sign, an invisible and divine grace 
with the Body and Blood of Christ is given, he saith, that ‘the 
visible sign is as a ring, which is given not for itself or absolutely, 
but to invest and give possession of an estate made over to one. 
Many things” (saith he) “are done for their own sake, and many in 
reference to something else, and then they are called signs. A ring 
is given absolutely as a gift, and then it hath no other meaning: it 
is also given to make good an investiture or contract, and then it is 
a sign; so that he that receives it may say, ‘The ring is not worth 
much; it is what it signifies, the inheritance, I value.” In this man- 
ner, when the passion of our Lord drew nigh, He took care that His 
disciples might be invested with His grace, that His invisible grace 
might be assured and given to them by a visible sign. To this end 
all sacraments are instituted, and to this the participation of the 
Eucharist is appointed.”” Now, as no man can fancy that the ring is 
substantially changed into the inheritance, whether lands or houses, 
none also can say with truth, or without absurdity, that the bread 
and wine are substantially changed into the Body and Blood of 
Christ. But in his sermon on the purification’, which none doubts 


τ De Gest. Angl., 1. iii. ¢. 58; et post ἃ Vincent. in Spec., 1. xxvi. ο. 40.— 
eum ab aliis.—Vide Bell. Chronol. an. Baron. ad an. 1088. § 16, &e. 


1079. ¥ Chron. Cassin., |. iii. c. 33. 

s Pegi. Comment. 31. ad 2 part. x Serm. de Coena Dom., Joh. vi. 56, 
Direct. Inquisit. 63. 

t Bertold. Constantiens. (qui tem- y Serm. de Purif. B. Marie. 


pore Berengar. vixit) ad an. 1083. 


CUAVAGES 
ὙΠ 


Rupert. 
Abb. 
A.D.1125. 


Pet. Lom- 
bard. 
A.D.1140. 


Otho Fri- 
singensis, 
Α.1).1148. 


220 THE HISTORY 


to be his, he speaks yet more plain: ‘‘The Body of Christ in the 
sacrament is the food of the soul, not of the belly; therefore we eat 
Him not corporally: but, in the manner that Christ is meat, in the 
same manner we understand that He is eaten.’”’ Also, in his sermon 
on S. Martin’, which undoubtedly is his also: “To this day” (saith 
he) ‘‘ the same Flesh is given to us, but spiritually, therefore not cor- 
porally.” For the truth of things spiritually present is certain 
also. As to what he saith in another place, that ‘“‘the priest holds 
God in his hands,”’ it is a flourish of oratory; as is that of S. Chry- 
sostom, ‘‘ In comes the priest carrying the Holy Ghost?.” 

14. About the same time Rupertus, abbot of Tuitium, famous by 
his writings, did also teach that the substance of the bread in the 
Eucharist is not converted, but remains. These be his words: 
** You must attribute all to the operation of the Holy Ghost, who 
never spoils or destroys any substance He useth, but, to that natu- 
ral goodness it had before, adds an invisible excellency which it had 
not>.”” He hath indeed an unwarrantable opinion of the union of 
the bread and Body of Christ into one person®; butit came (as some 
others as absurd in that age) from too great a curiosity about 
determining the manner of Christ’s Presence, and of the union of 
His Body with the bread, about which that learned man troubled 
himself too much. However, he neither taught nor mentioned 
transubstantiation. 

15. Not long after that Algerus, a monk, and some others, had 
had some disputes about this subject, Peter Lombard made up his 
books of Sentences, in the fourth whereof he treats of.the Eucharist, 
and thinks that it is taught by some sayings of the ancients, that 
‘‘the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the Body and 
Blood of Christ4.’? But soon after he adds: “1 it be demanded, 
what manner of change that is, whether formal, or substantial, or of 
any other kind, that I cannot resolve®.’’ Therefore he did not yet 
hold transubstantiation as’ a point of faith : nay, he doth not seem 
constant to himself in making it a probable opinion, but rather to 
waver, to say and unsay, and to shelter his cause under the fathers’ 
name, rather than maintain it himself. Of the accidents remaining 
without a subject, and of the breaking into parts the Body of 
Christ, (as Berengarius was bid to say by Pope Nicholas,) he reasons 
strangely, but very poorly. 

16. Otho, bishop of Frisingen, as great by his piety and learning 


* Serm. de S. Mart. Corpus Christi, sed Corpus non huma- 
* De Sacerd., lib. iii. num neque carneum, sed panaceum. 
b In Exod., 1. ii. c. 10. 4 Sent. iv. Dist. 10, 


© Ex qua consequebatur, panem esse © Dist. 11: 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 221 


as by his blood, (for he was nephew to Henry he Fourth, and the 


Emperor Henry the Fifth married his sister, he was also uncle _ 


to Frederick, and half-brother to King Conrad,) lived about the same 
time. He believed and writ, ‘‘ that the bread and wine remain in the 
Eucharist‘ ;’’ as did many more in that age. 

17. As for the new-coined word transubstantiation, it is hardly to 
be found before the middle of this century. For the first that 
mention it are Petrus Blesensisg, who lived under Pope Alexander 
the Third, and Stephen Eduensis®, a bishop, whose age and writings 
are very doubtful. And those later’ authors, who make it as 
ancient as the tenth century, want sufficient witnesses to prove 
it by, as I said before J, 

18. The thirteenth century now follows, wherein, the world grow- 
ing both older and worse, a great deal of trouble and confusion there 
was about religion: the bishop of Rome exalted himself not only 
into his lofty chair over the universal Church, but even into a majes- 
tical throne over all the empires and kingdoms of the world. New 
orders of friars sprung up in this age, who disputed and clamoured 
fiercely against many doctrines of the ancienter and purer Church, 
and amongst the rest against that of the sacrament of the Body and 
Blood of Christ : so that now there remained nothing, but to confirm 
the new tenet of transubstantiation, and impose it so peremptorily 
on the Christian world, that none might dare so much as to 
hiss against it. This Pope Innocent the Third bravely performed. 
He succeeding Celestin the Third at thirty years of age, and, march- 
ing stoutly in the footsteps of Hildebrand, called a council at Rome 
in S. John Lateran, and was the first that ever presumed to make the 
new-devised doctrine of transubstantiation an article of faith neces- 
sary to salvation, and that by his own mere authority. 

19. How much he took upon himself, and what was the man’s 
spirit and humour, will easily appear to any man by these his words 
which I here set down: “ΤῸ me it is said in the prophet, ‘I have 
set thee over nations and over kingdoms, to root out, and to pull 
down, and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build, and to plant.’ 
To me also it is said, in the person of the apostle, ‘ To thee will I 
give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For I am in a middle 
state betwixt God and man, below God, but above man; _ yea, 
greater than man, being I judge all men, and can be judged by 
none*,” ‘Am not I the bridegroom, and each of you the bride- 
groom’s friend? The bridegroom I am, because I have the bride, 


* Christ. Agric. in Antipist., p. 13. Eccles. 

g Epist. 140. J Chap. v. art. 1. 

Ὁ De Sacr. Altaris, in BB. Patrum. κ᾿ Innocent. III. Serm. 2. 
i Bellarmin. et Possevin. de Script. 


CHAP. 
VALE 





A.D.1180. 


ALD 5191.5: 
Innocent. 


ΤΠ Papa. 


The Late- 
ran Coun- 


cil, 


S. Joh, iii. 
29, 


1 [* Con- 
οὐ non 

sunt.”— 

Lat. | 


995 THE HISTORY 


the noble, rich, lofty, and holy Church of Rome, who is the mother 
and mistress of all the faithful: who hath brought me a precious and 
inestimable portion ', to wit, the fulness of things spiritual, and the 
vastness of temporal, with the greatness and multitude of both™.” 
“(σα made two great lights in the firmament of heaven: He hath 
also made two great lights in the firmament of the universal Church, 
that is, He hath instituted two dignities, which are the papal autho- 
rity and the regal. But that which governs the day, that is, spiritual 
things, is the greater, and that which governs carnal things the less ; 
so that it ought to be acknowledged that there is the same difference 
between the (Roman) high-priest and kings, as between the sun and 
moon”.” Thus he, when he was become Christ’s vicar, or rather 
His rival. These things I rehearse, that we may see how things 
went, and what was the face of the Latin Church, when Pope Inno- 
cent the Third propounded and imposed transubstantiation as an 
article of faith; as is plainly and at large set down by a learned 
author, George Calixtus®, who deserves equally to be praised and 
imitated. 

20. This Innocent, therefore, who, to increase his power and autho- 
rity, wrought great troubles to the Emperor Philip, stripped Otho 
the Fourth of the empire, forced John king of England to yield up 
into his hand this kingdom and that of Ireland, and make them tributary 
to the see of Rome, who,under pretence of a spiritual jurisdiction, took 
to himself both the supreme power over things temporal and the things 
themselves, who “ was proud and ambitious beyond all men, covet- 
ous to the height of greediness,’”’ (they are the words of Matthew 
Paris,) ‘‘and ever ready to commit the most wicked villanies, so he 
might be recompensed for it?,’”"—this, I say, was the man who in his 
Lateran council propounded that transubstantiation should be made 
an article of faith, and, when the council would not grant it, did it 
himself by his own arbitrary power, against which none durst open 
his mouth*. For those canons, which this day are shewn about 
under the name of the council, are none of his’, but merely the 
decrees of Pope Innocent, first writ by him, and read in the council, 
and disliked by many’, and afterwards set down in the book of 
decretals, under certain titles, by his nephew Gregory the Ninth. 

21. The same pope, after he had pronounced them heretics who 
for the future should deny, that ‘‘the Body and Blood of Christ are 


1 Addit: Multz filiz congregave- ° Exerc. de Transubst. 
runt divitias, hac autem sola super- P In Hist. Johan. Regis Angliz. 
gressa est universas. 4 Mat. Paris.in Hist. min. ; et Platin. 
™ Idem, Serm. 3. in vita Innoe, IIT. 
n Hpist. ad Imper. Constant., Extra; ¥ Verba Mat. Paris. in Hist. majori, 


de Major. et Obedientia, c. 6. ad an. 1215. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 993 


duly contained in the sacrament of the Altar under the outward CHA P. 
form of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into aa 
the Body, and the wine into the Blood, delivers them all, of 
what office or dignity soever, to the secular power to receive 
condign punishment’, that is, to be burnt,—commands those 
that are suspected to be tried and examined,—and declares them 
infamous, disabled from making a will, and incapable of any office or 
inheritance, that should favour or entertain them,—and sets all other 
Christians against them. Then he ordains, that “the secular powers 
shall be compelled by ecclesiastical censures publicly to swear that 
they will defend (this) faith, and endeavour utterly to destroy all 
whom the Church (of Rome) should note for heretics. But,” saith 
he, “1 the temporal prince doth neglect this, let him be excommuni- 
cated: and, if he slights to give satisfaction within a year, let the 
sovereign pontiff be certified of it, that he may absolve his subjects 
from their allegiance, and expose his territories to be taken and 
enjoyed without any contradiction by any catholics (Romans) that 
destroy the hereticst,” &c., (that is, those who do not believe tran- 
substantiation.) Thus Innocent the Third, by excommunications, 
and by arms, by rebellions, by tortures, and by burning alive, was 
pleased to establish his new article of faith. 

22. And, truly, had he not used such means, they themselves who Transub- 
did cleave to the Church of Rome would not have embraced this Sneed 
doctrine ; for it did not find such acceptance, but that many not- Court of 
withstanding did now and then oppose it. Nay, not only transub- ae ie 
stantiation, but even the Church (or rather the court) of Rome, many. 
which, if we believe Chancellor Gerson, “‘ was at this time wholly 
brutish and carnal, without almost any sense of the things of God",” 
was rejected by many, as it is well known. For certain it is that, 
transubstantiation being once established, there was a foundation 
laid to many superstitions and errors, which could neither be suf- 
fered nor approved by those that feared God. And among the sub- 
scribers to transubstantiation there grew a thicket of thorny and 
monstrous questions, wherewith the schoolmen were so busy, that it 
may with great truth be affirmed, that then came to light a divinity 
concerning the holy sacrament, and the adoration of it, which was 
not only very new, but very strange also, and never heard of among 
the fathers. There grew also out of the same stock illusions and 
false miracles, deceitful dreams, feigned visions, and such-like un- 
christian devices about the corporal Presence of Christ, as that some 
did see a child in the host, some flesh, some blood, any thing that 


s Extr. de Fide et Sum. Trin. c. Fir- t Ibid. : 
miter credimus. « Gerson., De Concil. Gen. 





224 THE HISTORY 


could come into the idle fancies of idle and superstitious men. 
One “at the point of death durst not receive the Body of Christ, be- 
cause he could keep nothing in; but, as he drew nigh to adore it, 
his breast bare and his arms open, the host, leaping out of the priest’s 
hand, having made itself a passage, entered of its own accord into 
the place where the dying man’s heart lay hid, and, the hole being 
made up again without any thing of a scar, the man lay down and 
then expiredv.”’ Another, ‘‘ being ready to die, begged that, his side 
being washed and covered with a clean cloth, the Body of Christ 
might be set on it; which being done, the cloth by degrees gave 
place to the Body of Christ, and soon after, when that divine Body 
touched the man’s skin, it penetrated to his very heart, in the sight 
of all the by-standers*.” They also tell the story, or rather the 
fable, how that, ‘‘ the Body of Christ’’ (for so they call the conse- 
crated bread) “‘ being set in a bushel upon some oats, an horse, an 
ox, and an ass, bowed their knees, and adored their Lord in the 
host.”” These and such-like fictions were daily invented without 
number by the patrons of transubstantiation ; and the impudence 
and boldness of coining such forgeries hath from them passed upon 
their successors. This was observed by King James in the writings 
of Bellarmine’ himself, who reports of ‘‘a certain deyout mare” that 
worshipped the host kneeling ; (knowing, doubtless, that by a due 
consecration it was transubstantiated.) Cesarius the monk, who 
lived soon after Innocent III., is full of such miracles; and yet he 
hath a history which shews that in his time transubstantiation was 
utterly unknown to a learned priest, canon of a great church. “ At 
Cologne,” saith he, ‘‘there was a canon in full orders, called Peter. 
When on a certain day another of the canons was sick, and about to 
receive the sacrament in his presence, the officiating priest asked the 
sick man, Dost thou believe that this is the true Body of the Lord 
which was born of the Virgin? He made answer, I believe it. 
Peter hearing and observing their words was amazed at them. After- 
wards, he coming alone to Everhardus the professor of divinity, wno 
had been also present at the communion, he asked him, Did the 
priest question the sick man aright? He answered, Yes; and who- 
ever believes otherwise is an heretic’. Then Peter, weeping, and 
smiting his breast, cried out : Woe is me, wretched priest ! how have I 
hitherto said mass ? for to this hour I thought that the bread and wine 
after the consecration were only a sacrament, that is, the sign and 
representation of the Lord’s Body and Blood.”’ 


’ Thom. Walsing. in Hypod. Neu- 7 Car. Bellarm., Apol. q. 132. 


stria, ad an. 1218. 7 For so it was decreed by Innocent 
* Discip. de Temp., Serm. 80. JONG 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 225 


23. I have already touched it, that, together with the new doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, there sprung up new sects of friars, which 
indeed in a short time increased beyond belief. For now to the 
order of Dominicans (whom Innocent III. had made his inquisi- 
tors, to kill and burn hereties*) was added the order of begging 
Franciscans ; and the Augustine eremites and the Carmelites were 
set up again. From these came the schoolmen, as we now call 
them, whose studies (as studies were in that time) were all employed 
about commenting on Peter Lombard, master of the Sentences. 

24. These men tired their brains (as we said) about unheard-of 
questions touching transubstantiation, such as pious ears would abhor 
to hear. For they ask, 1. Whether that be the Body of Christ 
which sometimes appears in the form of flesh, or of a child, on 
the Altar? and answer that they know not, “‘ because such appari- 
tions happen often, and are caused either by men’s juggling, or by 
the operation of the devil”.”” 2. Whether the mice (who sometimes 
feast upon the hosts, when they are not well shut up) eat the Body 
of Christ itself? or, if a dog or a hog should swallow down the 
consecrated host whole, whether the Lord’s Body should pass into 
their belly together with the accidents®? Some indeed answer 
(other some being otherwise minded) that, “ though the Body of 
Christ enters not into the brute’s mouth as corporal meat, yet it 
enters together with the appearances, by reason that they are in- 
separable one from the other,” (mere nonsense ;) “ for, as long as 
the accidents of the bread” (7. e., the shape, and taste, and colour, 
&c.) ‘remain in their proper being, so long is the Body of Christ 
inseparably joined with them; wherefore, if the accidents in their 
nature pass into the belly, or are cast out by vomiting“, the Body 
of Christ itself must of necessity go along with them: and for this 
cause pious souls” (I repeat their own words) ‘do frequently eat 
again with great reverence the parts of the host cast out by vo- 
miting.”” Others answer also, that “(ἃ beast eats not the Body of 
Christ sacramentally, but accidentally, as a man that should eat a 
consecrated host, not knowing that it was consecrated*.” 3. They 
inquire about musty and rotten hosts; and because the Body of 
Christ is incorruptible, and not subject to putrefaction, therefore 
they answer, that “the hosts are never so; and that, though they 
appear as if they were, yet in reality they are not; as Christ ap- 


peared as a gardener, though He was no gardener'.” 4. They 
4 Meaning those that deny transub- 4 [bid., q. 53. m. 3. 

stantiation. e€ Tho. Aq. Sum., p. 3. q. 80. ο. 3. 
> Alex. Alens,, 1. 4. q. 53. m. 4. a. 1. f Alger., J. ii. c. 1. 


“ Idem, 4. 45. τη. 1. a. 2. 
COSIN. Ἐ Q 





CHAP: 


VII. 


Eccl. vii. 
29. 


226 THE HISTORY 


demand concerning indigested hosts, which passing through the 
belly are cast into the draught, or concerning those that are cast 
into the worst of sinks, or into the dirt, whether such hosts cease 
to be the Body of Christ ? and answer, that, ‘“‘ whether they be cast 
into the sink or the privy, as long as the appearances remain, the 
Body of Christ is inseparable from them$’.’”’ And for the contrary 
opinion, they say that it is not tenable, and that it is not safe for 
any to hold it, because the pope® hath forbid it should be maintained 
under pain of excommunication. Therefore the modern schoolmen 
add, that, “1 any should hold the contrary, after the pope’s deter- 
mination, he should be condemned by the Church” (of Rome, that 
is.) Nay, they hold it to be a point of faith which none may doubt 
of, “because the contrary doctrine hath been condemned by Pope 
Gregory ΧΙ. 5. They ask concerning the accidents, whether the 
Body of Christ be under them when they are abstracted from their 
subject? This is against logic. Or whether worms be gendered, 
or mice nourished, of accidents? And this against physic. 6. 
Whether the Body of Christ can at the very same time move 
both upwards and downwards, one priest lifting up the host, and 
another setting it down? And I know not how many more such 
thorny questions have wearied and nonplussed them and all their 
school, and brought them to such straits and extremities, that they 
know not what to resolve, nor what shifts to make. And truly it 
had been very happy for religion, if, as the ancients never touched 
or mentioned transubstantiation, so latter times had never so much 
as heard of its name. Fo God made His sacrament upright, (as He 
did man,) but about it they have sought out many inventions. 

25. Likewise, this transubstantiation hath given occasion to some 
most wicked and impious wretches to abuse and profane most un- 
worthily what they thought to be the Body of Christ: for instances 
may be brought of some wicked priests who for filthy lucre have 
sold some consecrated hosts to Jews and sorcerers, who have 
stabbed and burnt them, and used them for witchcraft and enchant- 
ments. Nay, we read that S. Lewisk himself (very ill advised in 
that) gave once to the Turks and Saracens a consecrated host, as a 
pledge of his promise, and an assurance of peace. Now, can any 
one who counts these things abominable persuade himself that our 
blessed Saviour would have appointed that His most holy Body 
should be present in His Church in such a manner as that it should 


® Thom. in 4. dist. 9. q. 2.a.1.— in 3. disp. 195. c. 5.—Direct. Inquis., 
Brulif., in 4. dist. 13. q. 5. p: 1: πρὶ δ. eb p. 22g. 10: 
Ὁ Greg. Papa XI. k Leuncl. de Rebus Ture. § 116. 


* Sotoin 4, dist, 12. q. 1. a. 3.—Vasq. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. τ 


come into the hands of His greatest enemies and the worst of in- CHAP. 
fidels, and be eaten by dogs and rats, and be vomited up, burnt, VEE 
cast into sinks, and used for magical poisons and witchcraft? I 
mention these with horror and trembling, and therefore abstain from 

raking any more in this dunghill, 

26. No wonder, therefore, if, this new doctrine of Innocent IIT. 
being liable to such foul absurdities and detestable abuses, “ few 
men could be persuaded,” in the fourteenth century, “that the 
Body of Christ is really (or by transubstantiation) in the sacrament 
of the altar ;” as 1t is recorded by our countryman Robert Holkot!, 
who lived about the middle of that century. As also Thomas 
Aquinas reports of some in his time, ‘‘ who believed that, after con- 
secration, not only the accidents of the bread, but its substan- 
tial form, remained™.” And Albertus Magnus himself, who was 
Thomas his tutor, and writ not long after Innocent III., speaks of 
transubstantiation as of a doubtful question only. Nay, that it 
was absolutely rejected and opposed by many, is generally known ; 
for the anathema of Trent had not yet backed the Lateran decree. 

27. As for the rest of the schoolmen, (especially the modern,) who 
are, as it were, sworn to Pope Innocent’s determination, they use to 
express their belief in this matter with great words, but neither pious 
nor solid, in this manner: ‘The common opinion is to be embraced, 
not because reason requires it, but because it is determined by the 
bishop of Rome™.”’ Item: “ That ought to be of the greatest weight, 
that we must hold with the holy Church of Rome about the sacra- 
ments: now it holds that the bread is transubstantiated into the 
Pody, and the wine into the Blood, as it is clearly said, Evtra, De 
Fide et Summa Trinitate, cap. ‘ Firmiter®.’”? Again: “1 prove that 
of necessity the bread is changed into the Body of Christ; for we 
must hold that declaration of faith which the pope declares must be 
heldP.”” Thus, among the papists, if it be the pleasure of an impe- 
rious pope, as was Innocent III., doctrines of faith shall now and 
then increase in bulk and number, though they be such as are most 
contrary to Holy Scripture, though they were never heard of in the 
primitive Church, and though from them such consequences neces- 
sarily follow as are most injurious to Christ and His holy religion. For 
after Innocent III. the Roman faith was thus much increased4 by the 
determination of Pope Gregory XI., that, if it so happens, the Body A4.D.1371. 
of Christ in the consecrated host may descend into a rat’s belly, or 
into a privy, or any such foul place. 


! In 4. q. 3; an. 1350. ° Scot. in 4. dist. 11. 4. 3. 
Ge ond. foe ἃς Os P Bacon, in 4. dist. 8. q. 1. a. 2. 
mth aArgentin., im) 15 ὅ: 11. ἢ. 1- 4 Ut supra, art. 24, 

art. 2, 


ᾳ 2 


CHAP. 
WA 


The Coun- 
cil of Con- 
stance. 

A.D.1415, 


Card. Ca- 
meracen- 
sis. 


A.D.1420. 


The Coun- 
cil of Flo- 
rence, 


A.D.1439. 


228 THE HISTORY 


28. In the fifteenth century the council of Constance (which by a 
sacrilegious attempt took away the sacramental cup from the people, 
and from the priests when they do not officiate) did wrongfully con- 
demn Wiclif, who was already dead, because amongst other things 
he had taught, with the ancients, that ‘‘ the substance of the bread 
and wine remains materially in the sacrament of the Altar; and that 
in the same sacrament no accidents of bread and wine remain with- 
out a substance :”’ which two assertions are most true. 

29. Cardinal Cameracensis, who lived about the time of the 
council of Constance, doth not seem to own the decree of Pope 
Innocent as the determination of the Church. For, that the bread 
should still remain, he confesseth, that “it is possible ;” that ‘it is not 
against reason or the authority of the Bible™:’’ but concerning the 
conversion of the bread he says, that “clearly it cannot be inferred 
from Scripture, nor yet from the determination of the Church,” as 
he judgeth. Yet because the common opinion was otherwise, he, 
yielding to the times, was fain to follow, though with some reluc- 
tancy. 

30. The council of Florence, which was not long after, did not at 
all treat with the Greeks about transubstantiation, nor the consecra- 
tion of the sacrament, but left them undetermined, with many other 
controversies. But that which is called the Armenians’ Instruction§, 
(and in this cause and almost all disputes is cited, as the decree of the 
general council of Florence, by Sotot, Bellarmine", and the Roman cate- 
chism*,) is no decree of the council, as we have demonstrated some- 
where elseY, but a false and forged decree of Pope Eugenius IV., who 
doth indeed in that instraction prescribe to the Armenians a form of 
doctrine about the sacrament, saying, that ‘ by virtue of the words of 
Christ the substance of the bread is turned into His Body, and the 
substance of the wine into His Blood.” But that he did it with the 
approbation of the council, (as he often says in his decree,) is proved 
to be altogether false, as well by the acts of the council, as by the un- 
answerable arguments of C. de Capite Fontium, archbishop of Cz- 
sarea, in his book De necessarid Theologie Scholastice Correctione*, 
dedicated to Pope Sixtus V. For how could the council of Florence 
approve that deeree which was made more than three months after 
it was ended? it being certain® that, after the council was done, 
the Armenians, with the Greeks, having each of them signed letters 
of union, (which yet were not approved by all, nor long in force after 


seuniAacrqe 6: 8. ὃ. Υ In the History of the Canon of 
5. Instr. ad Armen. Scripture, num. 158. 

' In 4. dist. 11. q. 1. art. 2. 2 C. de Cap. Font. de necess. Correet. 
" De Euch., 1. 4. c. 13. Schol. Theol., p. 51, 53, et 56. 


x Part. 2. c. 4. num. 18. a Ex Act. Conc. Flor. 





OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 299 


they were subscribed,) departed out of Florence July 22, whereas CH AP. 


ae, 


the instruction was not given while November 22. Therefore, by 
the mutual consent of both parties, was nothing here done or decreed 
about transubstantiation, or the rest of the articles of the new Roman 
faith. But Eugenius, or whoever was the forger of the decree, put 
a cheat upon his reader. Perhaps he had seen the same done by 
Innocent III. or Gregory IX., in the pretended decrees of the 
council of Lateran, which were the pope’s only, but not the council’s. 
And certainly it is more likely Eugenius did it rather to please him- 
self, than for any hopes he could have that, at his command, the 
Armenians would receive and obey his instruction sooner than the 
Greeks: for to this day “the Armenians believe that the elements 
of bread and wine retain their nature in the sacrament of the 
Eucharist?.” 

31. By these any considering person may easily see, that transub- 
stantiation is a mere novelty, not warranted either by Scripture or 
antiquity, invented about the middle of the twelfth century out of 
some misunderstood sayings of some of the fathers, confirmed by no 
ecclesiastical or papal decree before the year 1215, afterwards re- 
ceived only here and there in the Roman Church, debated in the 
schools by many disputes, liable to many very bad consequences, 
rejected (for there was never those wanting that opposed it) by many 
great and pious men: until it was maintained in the sacrilegious 
council of Constance, aud at last, in the year 1551, confirmed in 
the council of Trent’, by a few Latin bishops, slaves to the Roman 
see, imposed upon all under pain of an anathema to be feared by 
none, and so spread too too far, by the tyrannical and most unjust 
command of the pope*. So that we have no reason to embrace it, 
until it shall be demonstrated that, except the substance of the bread 
be changed into the very Body of Christ, His words cannot possibly 
be true, nor His Body present ; which will never be done. 


» Joh. Lasic. de Relig. Armeniorum. ἃ Bulla Pii IV. de profess, fidei. 
© Concil. Trident., sess. xiii. 


VIE 





A TABLE OF THE PLACES OF SCRIPTURE 
CITED IN THIS BOOK. 


Exod. xii. 11,21 . : ΟΡ Ts  ARpaiy: 
Eccl. vii. ult. 3 Α ᾿ — VII. — xxiv. 
S. Matt. xxvi. 26 . ξ : =) I — il 

S. Luke xxii. 19 . : : ibid. ibid. 
S. John iii. 3 ‘ 3 : — VI. — vi. 
5. John iii. 29 ς δ : — Vil — xix, 
S. John vi. 55 : F : — I. — i 
Rom. xii. 2 : Ξ 3 — VI. — Vii. 
1 Cor. iv. 15 - : - ibid. ibid. 
1 Cor. x. 16 5 : : — 1. — il 

1 Cor. x. 3, 4 - Ξ - ibid. --- [iv.] 
Gal. vi. 15 ‘ Ξ : - VI. — viL 
Eph. iv. 22 5 4 : ibid. ibid. 
1 Pet. i. 3 : : : ibid. ibid. 
Jude Ep.v.3. . : : In the Preface. 


A TABLE OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS. 


Century I. 


Clemens Romanus - . Cuar. VI. AxRz.1. 

S. Ignatius . Ξ Ξ ibid. — x. 
Century II. 

Theoph. Antioch. : . CuHap. VI. ART.i 

Justinus Martyr . : - — VV. «- Vil. 

” ” . . . — VI. — xii. 
Athenagoras Ὁ ; : } pen Ξε 
Tatianus " 5 
Trenzeus 3 : : — Vz. — viii. 

+ ᾿ς Ε μ F — Vi, — γι ik 


Century III. 
Tertullianus ἐ : . CuHap. V. ART. 


ΕΣ ” . . . — vV 1. --- vii. 


232 


Origenes 
Cyprianus 
Clem. Alex. 
Minut. Felix 
Arnobius 


Euseb. Cesar. 
Athanasius 
Cyril. Hier. 

33 ” 
Juvencus 
Macarius 
Hilarius 
Optatus 
Euseb. Emiss. 
Greg. Naz, 
Cyril. Alex. 
Epiphanius 
Hieronymus 
Theoph. Alex. 
Gaudentius 
S. Basil. 

” 3} 

Greg. Nyss. 
Ambrosius 
” ” 


Chrysostomus 


3? ᾽᾽ 


S. Augustinus 
Prosper 
Leo 
Theodoretus 

5» » 
Gelasius 
Sedulius 
Gennadius 
Faustus Reg. 


Ephremus 
Facundus 
Fulgentius 


Victor Antioch. 


Primasius 


Procop. Gaz. 


Cuap. V. 


Century IV. 


A TABLE OF ANCIENT FATHERS, 


VI. — 


ART. 


se 
V., Vii. 

Xi. 

Vii., Vili.,xili. 
1., Vil. 

ibid. 

XXXV. 


Cuap; VI. ART: 1: 
Wie — xiii. 
ς ibid. — Xiv. 
< VI. — v., vii. 
ibid. — i. 
| ibid. Ven Vile 
| ibid. Vi. 
J 
V. — xv. 
VI. — vil. 
Ne — xvi. 
VI. — Vii. 
Vv. — XViL 
VI. — Vi, vii., xiii. 
γ. — Xxviil. 
VI. — vi., vii., viii. 
Century V. 
Cuap. V. “ART. xix. 
thid. — xx, 
— [VI] — [viii] 
V. — xxi. 
: VI. = σι 
3 Vie — xxii. 
᾿ Views £3. 
ibid. Vii. 
Century VI. ᾿ 
- - CHAP, Vo ΔῊ. χσχῖν" 
5 ibid. — χχν, 
- Ξ VI. — i. 
ξ ᾿ ΝΕ re 





A TABLE OF ANCIENT FATHERS. 233 


Isidorus Hisp. 
Hesychius 
Maximus 


Ven. Beda 
Car. Magnus 
Damascenus 


Paschasius 
Amalarius 
Rabanus Maurus 
Joh. Erigena 
Wal. Strabo 
Bertramus 
Niceph. Patr. 
Hinemarus 


Herigerus 5 
Fulbertus ‘ 


Idem Fulbertus 
Berengarius 


Hildebertus 
Theophylactus 
CEcumenius 


Bernardus 


” ” 


Rupertus 


Century VII. 


CHAP. 


Century VIII. 
CHAP. 


Century IX. 
Cuap. 


CrEenTuRY X. 


CHAP. 


Century XI. 
CHAP. 


Century XII. 
Cuap. 


Wes 
Vale 
ibid. 


ART. Xxvi, 
— i, ii. 


ART, XXxvVii. 
— XXviil. 
— 1. 


ART. Xxix. 
— Xxx. 
— ΧΧΧΙ. 
— ΧΧΧΙ͂Ι. 
— XXxili. 
— χχχῖν. 


— i. 


A TABLE OF THE SCHOOLMEN. 


Lombardus 

Alex. Alensis - 
” ” - 

Albertus,Magnus . 

Tho. Aquinas : 


” ’ 


Rich. de Mediavilla 


Century XIII. 


. CHAP. 


Ve. -ART. χα αν. 

ΜΠ ΚΞ Ss 

Vit. Arr: 

ibid. — ivV.,V.,Vi.,Vii., 
viii., &c. 

ibid. — iv. 

VI. — vii. 

VIL. Art. xili 

LE --ὺν 

Vie ae kV 

VII. Art. xv. 

ihid. — XXIV. 

VI. — i 

VII. — xxvi. 

VI. — i. 

VIL — xxvi. 

tbids — Xs 


234 


Scotus 

Durandus 

Occamus 

Baconus 

Holcotus 

Th. Argent. : 
Brulifer . : 


Card, Camerac. 


99 3) 
Gabriel Biel P 


Cajetanus 
Dom. Soto 


A TABLE OF THE SCHOOLMEN. 


Century XIV. 


‘ 


CENTURY XV. 


Century XVI. 


| Cuap. V. Art. iii. 
‘ — ὙΠ — xxv, 
ibid. — Χχνὶ. 
3 ibid. --- xXxXvii. 
3 ibid. --- XxXiv. 
Cuar.V. Art. iii. 
é — VII — xxix? 
‘ ibid. ibid. 
Cuap. VII. Art. xxix. 
: ibid. — χχῖν. 


A TABLE OF THE COUNCILS. 


Nicen. I. 

Chalced. 

Ancyran. 
Neocesarien. 
Laodicenum 
Carthagin. 
Aurelian. 
Toletanum IY. 
Braccarense 
Toletanum VI. 
Constantinop. VI. . 
Brixiense 5 
Anglican. 


” ” 
Arelatense ITT. 
Vercellense 
Turonense Ξ 
Rom. sub Nice. II. 


Rom, sub Greg. VII. 


Later. sub Inn, III. 
Constantiense 5 
Florentinum 
Tridentinum 


: CHAP VE) CART: 


ἐδ. — 


= 


es ο΄. 


Xi. 
XXill. 


xii. 
XXXVI 
ii. 
ibid. 
vii. 





A TABLE OF THE POPES. 235 


A TABLE OF THE POPES. 


Leo IX. . ᾿ : . Cuap. VII. Art. vii. 
Victor 11. ᾿ δ 5 ibid. — Viii. 
Nicol. II. ὃ . : ibid. — ix. 
Greg. VII. 3 5 - ibid. --- xii. 
Innoce. IIT. A : : ibid. --- xviii., xix., 
XX Xd 
Greg. IX. : : : — IV. -- vii. 
Greg. XI. 5 : : -- VII. — xxiv., xxvii. 
SSS 5 : - — VI. — ii. 
Eugenius IV. 3 Ξ ° — VII. — xxx. 
Pius IV. ἢ : : ibid. --- χχχὶ. 
sho 55 : : Ξ — IV. -- vii. 


A TABLE OF THE HISTORIANS. 


Photius ᾿ - . Cuar. V. Art. xxiv. 
Trithemius : é : ibid. — ΧΧΧΙ. 
Malmesbury 5 5 : ibid. --- ΧΧΧΊ., XXXII. 
i τε . A Ἴ — VII. — ἴν., νἱ., xii. 
Antonius : : : Vic — XXxil. 
Vincentius a : : ibid. ibid. 
3 : : ‘ Ville — τὰ 
Sigebert . - : : We — XXXvi. 
eh Ane < : ; : VII. — vi. 
Thevet . - - - ibid. — iv. 
P. Masson ἕ - : ibid. --- ix. 
M. Paris Ξ - A ibid. — Vi., Xx. 
M. Westm. 5 ς ᾿ ibid. ibid. 
Baronius : - A ibid. — ix., Xi. 
Sigonius - : : ibid. — ix. 
Chron. Cassin. Ξ - : ibid. — ΧΙ. 
Engilb. Trevir. . ᾽ . ibid. --- xii. 
Bertold. Const. . : 
Benno Cardinal. ibid. ibid. 
Abbas Ursperg. 
Otho Frisingen. . ὃ : ibid. — Xvi. 
Platina . Ξ = : ibid. — XxX. 
Th. Walsingh. . - 
Discip. de temp. ibid. — XXil. 


Cesarius Monach. 
Leunclavius Ε “ ibid. — Χχν. 
Lasicius ξ τ - ibid. — XXX. 


236 A TABLE OF CONFESSIONS OF REFORMED CHURCHES. 


A TABLE OF THE CONFESSIONS OF 
REFORMED CHURCHES. 


Anglic. . : 5 . ‘CHAP ΤΙ: VA a 
Augustan. ξ ; : ibid. --- Viil. 
Saxon. . : ᾿ 5 ibid. — ix. 
Wittemberg : . 3 ibid. — x. 

Bohem. . 5 ὃ : ibid. --- xi. 

Polon. . Ν ξ : ibid. — χὶ]., xix. 
Argentin. et Basil. < : ibid. — ΧΙ. 
Gallic. . é Ὁ Ξ ibid. — χῖν., XV. 
Belgica . : = Ξ ibid. --- xvi. 
Helvet. prior, et posterior. . : ibid. --- χυϊῖ, Σν1: 


A TABLE OF THE REFORMED AUTHORS. 


Luther . : 5 . ΠΑΡ. IE. ἈΕῚ. xii: 
Bucerus . 4 x 

Zuinglius : - , ibid. ibid. 
CEcolamp. © 

Poinetus. ᾿ - - ibid. — W. 
Juellus . 5 . Ξ ibid. --- iii. 
Bilson . : 5 - ibid. — ν. 
Andrewes : C 5 ibid. ὁ ibid. 
Jacob. Rex : Ξ ᾿ ibid. — Vi. 
Hooker . 5 : ἢ 

Joh. Epise. Roffens. 3 | 

Montacut. L 

Armachan. : : > ibid. ibid. 
Franc. Episc. Eliens. : | 

Laud : 5 τ | 

Overal . ὃ 

Anton. de Dom. . : ‘ ibid. — vii. 
Calvinus Ν : : ibid. — xXx. 


Colloq. Ratisb. : 5 . — ν. — xxii. 





A TABLE OF THE PAPISTS’ AUTHORS. 


A TABLE OF THE PAPISTS’ AUTHORS. 


Bellarm. 


Salmeron 
Tolet. 
Roffens. 
Perron 
Possevin. 

Se aah ΤΣ 
Steph. Gard. 
Greg. de Valen. 


Prefat. in Theodor. 


Sirmondus 
Tho. Walden. 


” ” > 


Index libr. prohib. . 


Indices expurg. 
Sixt. Sen. 
Vasquez 
” 39 
Direct. Inquisit. 
” ” 
Alph. a Castro 
Discurs. de Jesuitis 
Watson. Quodlib. 
Garetius . 
Alanus 
Lanfrancus 
Guitmundus 


P. Blesensis - 


Steph. Eduensis 
Gerson 

Catechism. Trid. 
De Capite Fontium 
Algerus . 


Gratiani Glossator. 


Cuap. 111. Art. i., ii. 


Ve 


c 
237 
Vii. 
ili.,V.,XViii., 


MR RTS 
io XIV sees 
Xvii. 
Xvii., XXii., 
ΧΧΧ. 

Vii. 
ibid. 
111. 
xiii. 
XViil., KXXV. 
Xvil. 
Xvili. 
KTS 
ibid. 
XXV. 
XXXi. 
xii. 


xii. 
XXIV. 
XVli. 
ibid. 
ibid. 
iv. 


- ibid. 


V5) Ὑ11:, Xe 
is 

XVli. 

ibid. 

xxii. 


ΟΝ 
THE VALIDITY 


OF 
THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


IN THE 


CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 





CONCERNING ORDINATION IN THE CHURCH 
OF ENGLAND, &c. 


[ The following portion of a letter to Bishop Morley, preserved among the 
Barlow manuscripts in the Library of Queen’s College, Oxford, together 
with copies of the chief part of Cosin’s first two letters in the following 
controversy, is here prefixed as an introduction to the letters them- 


selves. 


It was written about the year 1650, (i.e. five years after 1645. 


—See p. 242.) Mention is made of letters to Morley on this subject by 
Basire, Dead Man’s real Speech, p. 60, by Ded, Church History, vol. ii. 


p. 307, and by others.] 


FOR MY VERY GOOD FRIEND AND BROTHER, DR. MORLEY. 


Sir, 


Because you have so often desired me to let you know 
what passed between the Prior of the English Benedictines 
here in France and myself concerning the validity of our 
Ordination in the Church of England, I have here begun to 
transcribe you the two first papers which I wrote upon that 
subject: to the latter whereof he never made any answer*. 


8 [Cosin alludes to his second paper, 
viz., that of July 11, which contained 
large additional authorities. Dr. Ba- 
sire (Dead Man’s Real Speech, p. 60.) 
confounds it with his Review of Robin- 
son’s first paper of June 14, His 
words are: ‘The issue was,—Our 
doctor had the better so far, that he 
could never get from the Prior any 
_reply to his last Answer ;’’—which 
statement is not correct. In Smith’s 
collection of Bishop Cosin’s manu- 
scripts there is preserved a copy of a 
letter, apparently sent by the Prior 
with his reply to Cosin’s last Answer, 
(i. 6. the Review, dated July 25,) which 
the writer states to have reached him 
on the 26th of September; and in this 
there is mention made also of Cosin’s 
former papers. The part of it, which 
bears upon the history of this con- 
troversy, is as follows: 


“ΤῸ my worthy Friend, D. Ὁ. 
Sir, 
Having the honour to meet you, as 
I doubt not but you remember, in the 
Chamber of a noble Lady at Court, 


COSIN. 


the day after the feast of the Blessed 
Sacrament, the subject of our discourse 
being determined by the circumstance 
of the time, there was some question 
made of the honour due to the Sacra- 
ment, wherein I made great difference 
betwixt that which was consecrated on 
our Altars, as being the very true 
natural Body of Christ, and that which 
you give in your Cene, as being still as 
pure bread according to the substance 
as it was at first, your ministers hav- 
ing no power to consecrate for lack of 
ordination. To this you replied, that 
in your ordination you received as 
much power as our Priests, and that 
the ordination of both was the same; 
and that you could shew out of the 
ancient fathers, that the ordination used 
in England was sufficient for the con- 
secration and what else was to be done 
about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
and promised to give me the proofs in 
writing: for discharge of which pro- 
mise you sent me a paper wherein you 
undertook to prove, that ‘ by impo- 
sition of hands, and by those words,’ 
‘ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins 


242 CONCERNING ORDINATION 


The answer that he gave to the former of them, and the 
reply which I returned him, are so long that I have not now 
leisure enough to transcribe them. Yet, if, upon the perusal 
of these two, you shall still continue your desires to see more, 
I will set aside some hours hereafter for that purpose, and 
give you satisfaction ὃ, 

In the mean while, to let you know how this matter began 
between us, thus it was. At my first coming into France, 
(which was about five years since,) I found many of the 
Roman profession (both priests and others) very busy and 
industrious in persuading them of our religion that at- 
tended at the English court to turn papists; for which 
purpose the chief arguments that they used were such as 
these: ‘You have lived a long while in heresy, which hath 
brought God’s anger and indignation upon you: your king- 
dom of England is ruined: your Church is lost : your Bishops 
and Priests are put out of their places, and are never likely 
to be restored: your nine and thirty Articles are at an end, 
nobody regards them: your Service-book and your Sacra- 
ments are come into the contempt and scorn of the world : 
the head of your Church aches, and is ready to perish: the 
members are scattered and torn m pieces: the protestant 
Churches abroad will not acknowledge you, unless you will 
all turn Huguenots, or Lutherans: and they are all a company 
of heretics, as you are. What should you do among them? 


second, of Transubstantiality. In the 


ye remit,’ &c., holy orders were given 
to the Apostles, and are so to us—by 
those words and by no other.” Ina 
letter sent to the same Lady, from 
whose hands the paper was sent to 
mine, I shewed the defect of the proofs 
for the end you brought them. After 
I had sent that letter, I received a 
second paper from you to the same 
effect of the former; and upon the 26th 
of September I received an answer to 
my letter by a treatise consisting of 
twenty-one sections or chapters, which 
you called ‘ A Review of a Letter sent 
by F. R. to a Lady,’ &c. To this 1 
send you here an answer. 

I have not herein followed the method 
of your Review.... I thought it better to 
bring the subject we discoursed of into 
the method which the nature of the 
doctrine required ; and therefore I have 
made four sections. In the first, I 
speak of the Real Presence. In the 


third, of the Sacrifice of the Mass. In 
the fourth, ef the conferring the power 
to offer that Sacrifice, which is called 
the Ordination of Priests,’ &c_] 

> [From a letter, which is preserved 
in the Harleian MSS. (n. 3783.) dated 
from Faris, Aug. 28, 1659, and ad- 
dressed to Sancroft at Geneva, it ap- 
pears evident that Cosin designed these 
letters, or the substance of them, for 
publication. “Iam glad to hear from 
you,’ he says, “ that my ‘ History of 
the Scripture-Canon’ pleased you so 
well; but it was my late sitting up at 
nights to follow that work, that lost me 
the vigour of my eyes, and will now 
retard me, till I recover my sight, from 
perfecting any other such treatise, 
which ft intended to publish; whereof 
that which Dr. Morley shewed you, if 
God give me leave, is like to be the 
first.” | 








IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ἧτο. 243 


There is no safety, no salvation for you, to be had, but in 
the bosom of¢ 

the nearer; for that those men, whom we pretend to be 
Bishops and Priests, had not the true character of priesthood 
upon them, and wanted, not only a lawful succession, (which, 
if they wanted nothing else, he for his part was ready to 
grant them,) but also the very essential form or power, 
and matter of priestly order, without which there could be 
no Sacraments celebrated, nor any Church kept up at all. 
His offer to make a clear demonstration and proof hereof so 
far wrought upon that person whom he thus assaulted, that 
a promise was made him of forsaking our Church and re- 
hgion wholly, and of turning to the Roman Catholic party, 
if he could make his words good. 

I had not been then long at Paris, nor had I ever any 
sight or knowledge of this person before, who, having made 
so large a promise, was urged every day by the Prior to per- 
form it. 

After a week or thereabout, (when notice had been taken 
of my being in town, and of my coming to some other places, 
where I was better known in the queen of England’s court, 
and where I endeavoured to defend our own religion against 
divers others that were sent and brought thither to oppose 
it,) I had a special message brought me from the same per- 
son, very earnestly desiring that I would take the pains, at 
my first leisure, to come to the court, where there was a 
business to be imparted to me of a near concernment. 

When I came, all the proceeding that the Prior had for- 
merly had,—his last undertaking, together with the promise 
that was made him, (which was said to be seriously and de- 
liberately made,) were at large made known tome. And 1 
found that the promise had been received, and given to the 
Prior, in these terms, (the same day that I was sent for :) “If 
I may entreat the D[ean] of P[eterborough] (who hath been 
commended to me for this purpose) to have a conference with 
you, and if in that conference he cannot defend the validity of 
his own sacred orders, and give me satisfaction in what you 
have to say against it, I will and do promise you to quit my 

© [Here a leaf of the MS. is wanting. ] 
2 R 2 


244 CONCERNING ORDINATION 


present profession, and to be reconciled by you to yours, the 
very next morning after.’ Whereupon being demanded, 
whether I would admit and undertake that conference, or 
no,—when I had first declared my dislike of the promise, 
(which I said was too rashly and inconsiderately made: for 
the weight of this cause ought not to depend upon me, or 
any other particular man:) yet, being importuned and urged 
thereunto, and being desirous to preserve that person in our 
own communion, I yielded to the conference. For I well 
assured myself, that neither the Prior, (of whom I had some 
knowledge before,) nor any other of the Roman party, had 
aught of moment, and special in [t]his particular, to sayagainst 
us. So the next day was appointed‘; and, in the mean while 
notice being given of it to the Prior, we both came and kept 
our time; the person whom this business chiefly concerned 
having provided seven or eight other persons, some of our 
profession, and some of his, to be auditors and witnesses of 
what was said on either part. 

At this conference, (which continued about three or four 
hours together,) after some few preparations and agreements 
made between us, how to order it for the better and more 
ready satisfaction of the person there present, whom the 
Prior had sought to withdraw from our religion, I demanded 
of him, “ what it was that he had to say against it ?” 

And many objections he made: to which such answers 
were returned him, as that he was able to gain nothing of 
us. ‘Thereupon declining all other controversies (for that 
time) he addressed himself, as he was then desired to do, 
wholly upon this one,—“ Whether we had any Priests, or 
ministers of divine things, in the Church of England, truly 
ordained, or no?”—making the question, not “ whether 
they were lawfully or canonically ordered,” (which was the 
chief matter of controversy between Dr. Champney and Dr. 
Mason,) but “whether, upon supposition that they were 
true Bishops, [orders,?] according to the form now used in 


our Church, gave them any 


4 [It appears from Prior Robinson’s 
letter, that this day was “ the day after 
the feast of the Blessed Sacrament,’ 
that is, probably, after the octave of 
Corpus Christi, which in the year 1645 


true or real power of divine 


fell on Thursday, June 5; so that the 
conference took place on Friday, June 
13, and Cosin’s first paper was written 
the next day, June 14. (See p. 254.)] 





i 


~ 


IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, &c. 24! 


orders ?”—which he undertook to prove, that they did not. 
Being required to make his proof, he framed his argument 
against us after this manner: “Those orders, which want 
both the matter and form of divine orders, are no such 
orders at all: but your orders in the Church of England 
want both the matter and the form of divine orders: there- 
fore they be no such orders at all; nor are you any Priests 
or ministers of the Sacraments at all.” 

To prove the assumption, (which was denied him,) thus 
he proceeded: “ You, that have neither the paten nor the 
chalice delivered to you in your ordination of priesthood, 
(which is the matter of that holy order,) nor authority given 
you by your Bishops to offer sacrifice for the quick and 
dead, (which is the form of that order,) want both the 
matter and form of a Priest’s ordination. But you have 
neither of these; and therefore you are neither materially 
nor formally ordered to be Priests.” 

When I required him to prove his proposition, and told 
him that ‘‘we acknowledged no such matter and form, more 
than that they were either of them a new device, not long 
ago invented, and brought into the forms of ordination by 
the Roman Catholics: wherein other Churches, and ours in 
particular, that followed still the ancient forms, had no rea- 
son to follow them, both for that they were herein novelists 
destitute of Scriptures and fathers to bear them out in it, 
and for that they sought hereby to uphold such doctrines 
among them, concerning the Sacrament and the power of 
their Priests to offer a real and propitiatory sacrifice in it, as we 
must never allow. When 1 had said this, and bid him prove 
his proposition, whether out of the Scriptures, or out of the 
fathers, or out of any good author that lived in the East or 
West Church, (whereof his own was a part,) for the space of 
six, or (if that were not latitude enough for him) of seven 
hundred years together after the Apostles, (which I was well 
assured he would not be able to do,) instead of making his 
proofs, he fell (as their manner is) to asking of questions. 
And first he demanded of me, “‘ what I held to be the matter 
and form in the ordination of a Priest ?’”—whereunto I gave 
him this answer, that “we held nothing necessary either 
to the matter or form of it, but prayers and imposition of 


246 CONCERNING ORDINATION 


hands, together with the words that our Saviour said to His 
disciples, when He made them the dispensers of holy things, 
and ministers of His Church, in the xxth chap. of 8. John, 
‘Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye do remit, they are 
remitted,’ &c.:—by virtue of which words and benediction our 
holy orders are given us ;—and that not only the ancient 
fathers, but even their own best authors among the Roman 
Catholics themselves, were of the same mind; and therefore, 
that we were Priests, or ministers of God’s holy Word and 
Sacraments, sure enough, by the confession of all sides, with- 
out the new additions of chalice and paten, and sacrificing 
for the quick and the dead; which very few of his own reli- 
gion, besides himself, held to be necessary or essentially 
belonging to their ordaining of a Priest.’ And hereupon he 
was desirous to know, what authors I could name, old and 
new, that were of my mind? which I told him I would do in 
good time more at large. In the mean while I named him 
some of those, whom I cite in the first and second papers, 
written at his own request, and here ensuing. Next he de- 
manded, “If I were able to tell the time, when these new 
additions, as I called them, were brought into the Church ?” 
My answer was: 1. “ That they were never yet brought into 
the Catholic Church, that is, universally received: 2. That, 
when they were brought into the Roman or Latin Church, it 
concerned him to look to; yet, if he knew it not, that I could 
go near to tell him for a need: ὃ. But that it was enough 
for us to be assured (as we were) that the ancient primitive 
Church (wherein they gave orders without them) never own[ed] 
them, as he did; and that the Greek Church, in making of 
their Priests, (whom the Roman Catholics do not deny to 
be truly ordained,) maketh no use of them at this day: 4. 
I added, that, whenever they came into the Church of Rome, 
they had not yet got such credit there, as to be made the 
matter and form essentially belonging to their own ordina- 
tion.” Whereat he took occasion still to ask more questions, 
both concerning the ancient Church, (in which he seemed to 
have no great skill, or so much at least as appertained to this 
particular,) and concerning the modern Churches abroad 
among the Greeks and other nations of the world, that had 
no dependence upon the Church of Rome. ΤῸ which ques- 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, &c. 247 


tions he received such answers, as brought him to acknow- 
ledge, that for the present he could make no reply to them ; 
but, if he might receive any of them set down in writing, he 
made no doubt but that he should [be] able to say somewhat 
to them, which should give both me, and the person for whose 
sake we had met together, a full and clear satisfaction in 
what he had undertaken to prove. In the meanwhile he de- 
sired to know: 1. “ Whether our Priests or ministers had 
any power to consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar; and by 
what words that power was given them in our form of ordina- 
tion?” 2. ‘“ Whether they had any power to offer the Sacri- 
fice of the Altar; and by what words that power likewise was 
with us conferred upon them?” I told him, “ that (exclud- 
ing their pretended and vain sense of transubstantiating the 
bread and wine, of a true and proper altar, and of a real 
sacrificing of the Body of Christ: all which we rejected as 
unsound and uncatholic doctrine :) we had both the one and 
the other power given us; that is, a power to bless the ele- 
ments, and of common bread and wine to make them become 
sacred symbols or the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of 
Christ ; which was as certainly given to the faithful, as the 
Sacrament itself was received by them; and a power to offer 
the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which is a sacrifice of praise 
and thanksgiving, made in the name of the Church, for the 
Sacrifice that Christ made of Himself, and offered upon the 
Altar of His Cross once for 811. He replied, that “a power 
to remit and retain sins, which was only given us (or rather 
pretended to be given us) in our orders, was not sufficient 
for all this: and therefore, that, howsoever we might take 
upon us to absolve or bind sinners, yet we could neither con- 
secrate, nor sacrifice, no not in our own seuse; because our 
Bishops, in ordaining us, say nothing to us of them.” But, 
when 1 had returned him this answer, 1. ‘ That the Bishop 
says to us, ‘ Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, which is to confer 
upon us a ghostly and a ministerial power under Him, by 
whom all things are made holy, and all the spiritual sacrifices 
of the Church offered up, to perform all the sacred actions 
that any way belong to our office :” 2. ‘ That the power of 
remitting sins relates to the right dispensing of the blessed 
Sacrament, which was expressly instituted for the remission 


248 CONCERNING ORDINATION, &c. 


of sins : 3. “ And that the Bishop, for the better explaining 
of this power, addeth words to the same purpose, when in his 
ordaining of a Priest he saith, ‘And be thou a faithful dis- 
penser of the Word of God and of His holy Sacraments, in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost; Amen :’”’—this answer, (which the person whom the 
Prior had sought to pervert, and others there present, ap- 
proved, and said that both it and all the former did suffici- 
ently satisfy them,) put him to some silence. Yet, afterwards 
desiring me to give him a paper of what I had said, or could 
say more in this particular, (whereof I told him there was no 
need, ) he began to make new objections against®.......... 


© [Here the Barlow MS. breaks off; in full hereafter among the following 
but it is followed by a rough draft, papers, as preserved in vol. xl. of the 
in Cosin’s own hand, of part of the Smith MSS. in the Bodleian Library. } 
letter dated July 11; which is given 





REVIEW OF A LETTER 


SENT 


PICO SPOR: Re ROr ck LADY 


(WHOM HE WOULD HAVE PERSUADED TO THE ROMISH PARTY) 
IN OPPOSITION 
TO A FORMER PAPER GIVEN HIM 
FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 


IN THE 


ORDINATION OF PRIESTS. 





THE FORM OF ORDAINING PRIESTS IN THE 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:®. 


Ir is to be performed at the celebration of the Holy 
Eucharist : 

Where», after 

The Epistle, Acts 20.—The Holy Ghost hath made you, 
&e. 

The Gospel, 8. John 20.—Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose 
sins, &e. 

And 
The Hymn, Veni Creator.—Come Holy Ghost, ἕο. 
With 

The Litany, and other prayers to that purpose,— 

The Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their 
hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth 
Orders, the receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees, 
and the Bishop saying : 

“Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose sins thou dost forgive, 
they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are 
retained: And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of 
God, and of His holy Sacraments: In the Name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” 

The Bishop shall (then) deliver to every one of them the 
Bible, .... saying: 

“Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and 


to minister the holy Sacraments in the! congregation, where ' [“this.”’] 
thou shalt be so appointed.” 


* [This, and the following form, in b [See “the Form of Ordering of 
Cosin’s own hand, are preserved in the Priests,’ in ‘‘The Book of Common 
Birch collection of MSS. in the Brit. Prayer and Administration of the Sa- 
Mus., num. 4274. ] craments,”’ &c., fol. Lond. 1634.] 


252 THE FORM OF ORDAINING PRIESTS. 

Then shall the Creed be sung, ἕο. And all they that be 
ordained shall “remain in the same place, where hands were 
laid upon them, until such time as they have received the 
Communion :” 


At the end whereof the Bishop giveth the Benediction. 


THE FORM IN THE ROMAN? CHURCH. 


Arrer the tradition of the paten with the host (uncon- 
secrate) upon it, which they that are to be ordered take from 
the Bishop, and receive between their former and their 
middle fingers; and the delivery of the chalice with wine 
and water in it, (unconsecrate likewise ;) which they touch, 
(paten and it together, both at once:) the Bishop adding 
thereunto this form of words, ‘ Take thou authority to offer 
sacrifice to God, as well for the living as for the dead, in the 
name of the Lord :’ 


Then the Bishop layeth hands upon every one of their 
heads, and saith : 


“ Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose sins thou dost forgive, 
they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are 
retained :᾿ In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 


The difference of these two forms only is, that they deliver 
their ceremony of the paten and chalice defore these words, 
ς Receive the Holy Ghost,’ &c.; and we deliver ours (of the 
Bible) after them. They say, ‘Take thou authority to offer,’ 
&e.; and we say, ‘ Take thou authority to administer the 
holy Sacraments.’ But we do it also at the imposition of 
hands, pertaining to the essence of orders: which they 
do not. 


“ [See the form ‘De Ordinatione  potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo, mis- 


Presbyteri,’ in the Pontifical. Rom., 
Clem. VIII. jussu edit., fol. Rome, 
1595, pp. 67, 73.—Tum Pontifex.... 
tradit cuilibet successive calicem cum 
vino et aqua, et patinam superpositam 
cum hostia; et ipsi illam accipiunt in- 
ter indices et medios dignitos, et cup- 
pam calicis et patinam simul tangunt, 
pontifice singulis dicente: ‘ Accipe 


sasque celebrare, tam pro vivis, quam 
pro defunctis: In Nomine Domini. 
Amen.” aos eee Quo 
finito, Pontifex . . . imponit ambas 
manus super capita singulorum coram 
eo genuflectentium, dicens cuilibet: 
** Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: Quorum 
remiseris peccata, remittuntur eis; et 
quorum retinueris, retenta sunt.” 





THE OCCASION OF THIS ENSUING DISCOURSE 
CONCERNING 


THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS OR MINISTERS IN 
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 


Fatuer Rosinson, endeavouring to draw a lady in the 
English court from her own profession of religion to the 
Roman party, had among other things undertook to prove to 
her, that in the Church of England we had no true Priests: 
whereupon she desired a conference between him and the 
D{[ean] of P[eterborough. | 

In that conference F. R. pretended, that our ordination 
was defective both in matter and form: in matter, because 
we had neither paten nor chalice delivered to us by the 
Bishop: im form, because the Bishop did not say to every 
one that was to be ordained, ‘ Take thou authority to offer 
sacrifice for the quick and the dead :’ which both matter and 
form he affirmed to be essential and necessary in the ordina- 
tion of Priests; so that, where this defect was, there was no 
priesthood at all. 

The D. maintaied: 1. That the Church of England had 
retained all things necessary to ordination: 2. That the 
matter and form mentioned by F. R. were but late invented 
ceremonies in the Church of Rome, and did not essentially 
belong to the ordaining of Priests: 3. That the true matter 
and form were imposition of hands and giving the power of 
the Holy Ghost to remit sins, administer the Sacraments, 
and preach the Word of God; which being retained by our 
Church, he undertook to prove that therein she had followed 
both Scripture and antiquity; neither of which could be pro- 
duced (as he then affirmed) for F. R.’s assertion concerning 
the paten and the chalice, cwm formd annexd. Afterwards F. R. 
desired to have somewhat in writing: and, being hasty to 
go out of the town the next day, this ensuing paper was 
drawn up. 


June 14, 
1645. 


254 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


THE WORDS WHEREBY HOLY ORDERS ARE GIVEN. 


By these words, “ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye do 
remit,” &c., are holy orders given,—were so to the Apostles, and 
are so to us, even to this day, by these and no other words?: 
which words had not the Church of Rome in their ordina- 
tions, it might well have been doubted, (for all their ‘ Accipe 
potestatem sacrificandi pro vivis et mortuis,’) whether they had 
any Priests at all, or no. But (as God would) they retamed 
them, and so saved themselves. 

For these are the very operative words for the conferring 
of this power. 

The benefit of the remission of sins came from the Blood 
of Christ’s veins, from the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood, 
which He made upon the Cross; and we cannot name the 
one, but we must of necessity mclude and have relation 
to the other. It came by the death and blood-shedding of 
Christ, the sacrifice that He offered for the world. 

And, for the applying of this unto us, there are divers 
means and powers established by Him in His Church; which 
are all conferred upon the Priest by these words: “ Receive 
the Holy Ghost: whose,” &c. 

Where the Holy Ghost signifieth “ not the person, but the 
gifts of the Holy Ghost” ;” by which authority and power is 
given unto men in the Church to be dispensers and ministers 
of holy things, “to raise men from the earth, and bring God 
Himself down from heaven, by blessing visible elements to 
make them conduits of His invisible grace, and to dispose of 
that Flesh and Blood which was given and offered up for the 
life of the world *.” é 

Thus by these words hath Christ “imparted power to 
the Priest, both over His mystical Body, which is the society 
of souls, and over the natural Body, which is Himself, for the 
uniting of both in one 4.” 

Now, all and every of these means working forth remission 
of sins, which is the first and greatest benefit that our 
Saviour hath obtained for us, and of all these the Priest 
being a dispenser for that end that men may be freed from 


* (Conf. Lane. Andr.serm. inS. Joh. ¢. 77.—Op., ed. Lond. 1723, p. 276.] 
xx. 22.—xcvi. Serm., ed. Lond. 1641, ¢ (Ibid., p. 275.] 
Ρ. 687. ] 4 [ Ibid. ] 

υ [Conf. Hooker’s Eccl. Polit. 1. v. 


IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 255 


their sins and reconciled and united to God, therefore is this 
power of remitting sins (as the summary of the rest) conferred 
and given in holy orders. And it was the judgment of an- 
cient fathers, that the orders of Priesthood were given by 
these words, and that by them Priests have power to do their 
office in the Sacraments of the Church, as well as in this 
particular of absolving penitents from their sins: which is 
clear by these ensuing © testimonies. 

S. Hilary, 5. Jerome, 8. Austin, (as is confessed by Card. 
Bell. himself‘, 1. 1. de Pont. Rom. c. 12,) interpreting these 
words, “ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose,” &c., say that they 
are to be understood to confer “the power of order and 
Jurisdiction.” 

S. Cyprian, Ep. 73.8—“ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose 
sins,” &e.—5 “ Unde intelligimus non nisi Dominicé ordinatione 
fundatis licere baptizare aut remissam peccatorum dare',”’ &e. 
“Therefore” (he saith) ‘ Corah, Dathan, and Abyram, offer- 


© {The following sections of this 
paper in the Barlow MS. are somewhat 
differently arranged, viz. S. Cypr., 
S. Hier., Card. Bellarm., S. Hil, S. 
Hier., S. Aust., S. Anselm, Salmeron, 
Bp. Andr., Cone. Carth., Panorm., 
Innoe. III, Card. Hostiens. ] 

* {See Bellarm., de Romano Ponti- 
fice, lib. i. cap. 12. §§ Alia, et Et quam- 
vis; ed. Ingolst. 1601, tom. i. col. 658. 
— Est ergo communis expositio Hilarii, 
Hieronymi, Anselmi, et aliorum, in 
hune locum, necnon Augustini, tract. 
22, et 49. in Joannem, Dominum loqui 
de potestate clavium, qua apostoli et 
eorum successores ligant vel absolvunt 
peccatores. 

Et quamvis hie tractari videatur 

- precipue de potestate jurisdictionis, 
qua peceatores excommunicantur, ta- 
men patres jam nominati locum hune 
de utraque poiesiate, ordinis videlicet 
et jurisdictionis, exponunt; et certe 
videtur ex ipso textu id posse deduci. } 

8 [ὃ Quod si.—See S. Cypr. op., 
ed. Oxon. 1682, p. 201; where S. Cy- 
prian’s argument is: Manifestum est 
autem ubi et per quos remissa pecca- 
torum (Matt. xvi. 19) dari possit, que 
in Baptismo scilicet datur. Nam Petro 
primum Dominus, super quem edifi- 
cavit Ecclesiam, et unde unitatis origi- 
nem instituit et ostendit, potestatem 
istam dedit, ut id solveretur in ccelis, 
quod ipse solvisset in terris. Et post 
resuirectionem quoque ad apostolos lo- 


quitur, (Joan. xx. 21,) dicens, ‘ Sicut 
misit Me Pater, et Ego mitto vos.’ 
Hoc cum dixisset, inspiravit, et ait illis, 
“ Accipite Spiritum Sanctum: si cujus 
remiseritis peccata, remittentur illi: 
si cujus tenueiitis, tenebuntur.’’ Unde 
intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesia pre- 
positis, et in Evangelica lege ac Domi- 
nica ordinatione fundatis, licere bap- 
tizare et remissam peccatorum dare; 
foris autem nec ligari aliquid posse, 
nee solvi, ubi non sit qui aut ligare 
possit aliquid, aut solvere. Nec hoc, 
frater carissime, sine Scripture Di- 
vine auctoritate proponimns, ut dica- 
mus certa lege ac propria ordinatione 
divinitus cuncta esse disposita; nec 
posse quenquam contra episcopos et 
sacerdotes usurpare sibi aliquid, quod 
non sit sui juris et potestatis. Nam 
et Chore, et Dathan, et Abyron, contra 
Moysen et Aaron sacerdotem sacrifi- 
candi licentiam usurpare conati sunt; 
nec tamen quod illicite ausi sunt im- 
pune fecerunt. Et filii Aaron, qui 
alienum, &e. | 

h From hence, or from these words, 
we learn that those, who by this ordina- 
tion of Christ are founded in the priest- 
hood, may baptize, remit sins, &e. 

! [In the Barlow MS. there is added 
in Cosin’s hand: “ It was his error 
here to plead against Heretic Bap- 
tism, but this was none.’’—See below, 
p- 270. ] 


[ This pas- 
sage is 
supplied 
from the 


Barlow 
MS. ] 


256 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


ing sacrifice without being ordained to it, were severely 
punished.” 

S. Jerome, Ep. 150*. ad Hedibiam, q. 9.— Receive the 
Holy Ghost : whose sins,” &c.—“ Therefore, upon the first day 
of Christ’s resurrection, the Apostles received the grace of 
the Holy Ghost to remit sins and baptize, and to make 
men the sons of God, and to give them the Spirit of adop- 


tion.” 


Multa hic! addenda ex aliis patribus, quorum L. non sunt 
ad manum. 

[That Holy Orders are given by Imposition of hands; and 

that the delivery of the paten and the chalice is not necessary, 

nor the words of ‘ Accipe potestatem sacrificandi pro vivis et 


mortuis.’ | 


1. Panormitanus™, 2. sup. decret., de sacrament. non iter- 


andis, cap. Presbyter. 
text.) 


(His authority is held as good as the 
“The delivery of the chalice and the paten is not of 


the substance of ordering Priests.” 

2. Innocent the pope says", that, “ unless other forms had 
been afterward brought into the Church by canons, it had 
been enough for the ordainer to have said: ‘ Be thou a Priest,’ 
or ‘a Deacon;’ and the ordination had been good.” 

3. The great scholar and cardinal Hostiensis® saith as 
much, and to the same purpose. 


Κ [al. Ep. exx. q. ix.—S. Hier. op., 
ed. Vallars. Verone, 1734, tom. i. col. 
828.—Prima igitur die resurrectionis 
acceperunt Spiritus Sancti gratiam, 
qua peccata remitterent, et baptizarent, 
et filios Dei facerent, et Spiritum adop- 
tionis credentibus largirentur. ] 

1 Many testimonies are here to be 
added, out of the ancient fathers, at 
more leisure. 

πὶ {See Nicolai de Tudeschis, Archiep. 
Panorm., Comm. super secund. par. in 
lib. i. Decretalium; ed. Lugd. 1586, 
tom. i. par. 11, fol. 51, A.—Quero, qui 
actus interveniant in ordinatione Pres- 
byteri? Dic, quod multi: tenere ma- 
nus super caput, dare illi calicem, dare 
patinam, ungere illius manus: quili- 
bet actus habet suam_ solennitatem. 
Uno omisso, non propterea iterabuntur 
alii. Quidam tamen dicunt dationem 
calicis et patine non supplendam, quia 
hee non sunt de substantia. Tamen 
tutius est suppleri, secundum In. | 

n (Idem, ibid. fol. 51, B.—Quzro 


de formis ordinandi. Dicit In., quod 
invenitur in Epistola ad Titum, quod 
Apostoli manus imponebant ordinan- 
dis, et orationes fundebant super eos: 
nec alia forma invenitur. ~ Unde dicit 
In., quod, nisi fuissent aliz forme 
postea statute, sufficeret quod ordi- 
nator diceret ordinando : ‘Sis presby- 
ter, vel diaconus, vel subdiaconus. 
Hodie vero formz postea sunt per 
Ecclesiam invent, et statute, et de 
necessitate servandz: adeo quod, si 
eis omissis fuerit aliquis ordinatus, 
suppleri debent, &c. ] 

ο [See Petri Suavis Polani Hist. 
Cone. Trid., lib. vii. art. 6; ed. August. 
Trin. 1620, p. 481.—Visus est admo- 
dum ad rem apposite locutus Mel- 
chior Cornelius Lusitanus id dignum 
consideratione censens, quod est cer- 
tissimum Apostolos in ordinationibus 
usos esse Manuum impositione, adeo ut 
nulla unquam in Divina Scriptura ordi- 
natio sine hac ceremonia facta legatur : 
-... etiam celebres canonistas, Hosti- 


IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 257 


4, Con. Carthaginens. 4%™4 can. 5.—Quomodo Presbyteri | A», 436. 
ordinentur®. “ Presbyter cum ordinatur, Episcopo eum bene- Barl. MS.) 
dicente, [et] manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes 
Presbyteri ... presentes manus suas junctd manu Episcopt 
super caput ejus teneant.” 

Where Priests are appointed by that great council to be 
ordained with imposition of hands only, (without either chalice 
or paten mentioned,) as the Church of England observeth. 

5. Salmeron the Jesuit, in 8S. John xx. 21, upon the words, [g 5, is 
“Receive the Holy Ghost: whose,” &c.—saith’, that “in placed mar 


der the 
these words there was not only given to the Apostles and first thesis 


their successors a power to absolve penitents, but also to ee 
preach and to administer the Sacraments : and that Christ MS-] 
“here by these words made His new Priests of the Gospel, 
though He designed them to offer the sacrifice before that.” 
“Without the Holy Ghost, (who was not given before, be- 


eause Christ was not glorified,) no Sacrament can be cele- 


brated in the Church.” 


6. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont., 1. i. c. 12. ὃ Dices :—saith* he, 


ensem, Joan. Andream, Abbatem, et 
alios, affirmare papam verbo solo pres- 
byterum ordinare posse dicendo, ‘ Esto 
sacerdos ; quodque pluris est, Inno- 
centium omnium canonistarum paren- 
tem universe asserere, nisi formule 
illz recens adinvente obstarent, abunde 
futurum, si ita diceret ordinator : ‘ Esto 
sacerdos,’ aut verbis tantundem valen- 
tibus uteretur. | 

a [See Conc. Carthag. iv. (ann. 
398,) can. iiii—Labbe, tom. ii. col. 
1200. | 

τ How priests are to beordained. The 


- priest is ordained by the bishop pro- 


nouncing the benediction over him and 
laying hands upon him, as is now used 
in the Church of England. 

5 [Salmeron. Comm. in Evang. 
lib. xi. tract. 18; ed. Col. Agr. 1604, 
tom. xi. p. 135.—Sicut ergo misit Me 
Pater, ut pacem facerem et annuntia- 
rem, ita Ego mitto vos, ut pacem verbo 
annuntietis, illamque cum aliis inter- 
mediis sacramentis perficiatis. Ut mi- 
nistros enim Evangelii pacis vos mitto. 
....Daturque his verbis auctoritas 
predicandi, et pretiosas Christi divi- 
tias dispensandi, hoe est, remissionem 
peccatorum, gratiam, et justitiam.... 
Sed, quia he potestas et gratia spi- 
ritualis est, et non potest hominibus 


COSIN. 


competere, nisi ex dono Spiritus Sancti, 
ideo prius illis Spiritum Sanctum largi- 
tur in sensibili signo Spiritus, ipsi con- 
venienti, scilicet inspiratione et insuf- 
flatione, de qua ait textus: ‘Et, cum 
hee dixisset, insufflavit.’ Dixerat su- 
pra Joannes: ‘ Nondum erat Spiritus 
datus, quia Jesus nondum erat glori- 
ficatus.’ Ut primum igitur gloriam ex 
resurrectione est consecutus, MOx cze- 
pit Spiritum suis sensibiliter imper- 
tiri, copiosius largiturus, cum perfec- 
tam per ascensionem et sessionem ad 
Patris dexteram adeptus est gloriam. 

‘Hee cum dixisset, insufflavit, et 
dixit eis: Accipite Spiritum Sanctum.’ 
Ut olim sacerdotes nova ceremonia 
creati sunt, id est, lotione et unctione, 
ut in Exodo habetur, ita Christus in- 
sufflatione, hoc est, communicatione 
Sui Spiritus in flatu significati, ad 
facultatem remittendi peccata sacer- 
dotes novos promovit, sicut in cond 
ad offerendi sacrificii potestatem jam 
creaverat ac designaverat. ] 

τ [Bellarmini Disputat., ut supr. 
tom. i. col. 661.—Dices, si non sunt 
apostolis datz claves hoe loco, sed 
tantum promisse, quo tandem loco 
sunt date? Respondeo datas esse 
Joan. xx. 21. Nam Joan. xx., cum 
Dominus ait apostolis, ‘Pax vobis: si- 


258 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


that “by these words, ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins,’ 
&c., Christ conferred the powers of orders on His Apostles.” 
[Under 7. Bishop Andrewes therefore might well say", as he doth 
hese in his sermon of the Power of Absolution, that they who were 
MST ordained Priests “are not ordained by any other words or 
verse than this, John xx. 21, ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost,’ &c.” ; 
which is the form of ordination used by the Church of Eng- 


land, as it was by the old Church of God. 


After this former paper, before any answer was returned 
to it, this second paper following* was sent to F. R. from 
the D. 


Sine. July 11th. 

I shall shew you, that your opinion which you took upon 
you to maintain is no point either of catholic doctrine or of 
catholic practice; and to this end I shall make it clearly 
appear : 

Enlarged 1, That the delivery of the paten and the chalice with this 
= ee form of words, ‘Take thou authority to offer sacrifice for the 
ene. living and the dead,’ is not essential in the ordination of a 
MS. ] Priest, and that there was no example of it to be found in 
Scripture: and, 
_2. That it was not either the command or the custom of 
the ancient Church to use any such form: and, 

3. That the present Roman Church doth not require it as 
simply necessary, but acknowledgeth orders to be valid with- 
out it. 

1. In the Ritual or Sacramental of S. Gregory ¥, who was 
Bishop of Rome above a thousand years since, and who set 


forth that book as well to shew what had been the orders 


cut misit Me Pater, et Ego mitto vos;’ they are given, ....were to them, and 
tum eis potestatem seu clavem juris- are to us,.... by these and no other 
dictionis attribuit: fecit enim his ver- words. | 

bis eos quasi legatos, et nomine Suo x [This paper appears to have been 


gubernatores Ecclesie; verbis autem sent, however, not in its present shape, 
sequentibus, ‘Accipite Spiritum Sanc- but as altered by Bishop Cosin upon 


tum: quorum remiseritis peccata,’ &c., the receipt of F. P.’s first letter. See 
dedit eisdem potestatem ordinis, utsu- the enlarged paper, which presently 
pra diximus. ] follows. | 

" [See Serm. in S. Joh. xx. 22.— y [See Libr. Sacramentorum; ap. S. 


Lancel. Andr. XCVI. Sermons, ed. fol. Greg. op., ed. Ben. Par. 1705, tom. iii. 
Lond. 1641, p. 687.—By these words 60]. J, et seq.] 


IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 259 


and form of ordination (among other things) in the Roman 
Chureh before his time, as to deliver a pattern and prece- 
dent for that purpose to posterity, there is no mention at all 
of any such ceremony or form of words in the manner of 
ordaining a Priest. 

2. Nor is there any such form in the manuscript Pon- 
tificals, or Sacramentals, of the Church of Rheims, written 
above eight hundred years since, nor in the book of Rodradus 
of the monastery of S. Peter’s of Corby, written about the 
same time, nor in the old manuscript of S. Eligius there, 
written before that of Rodradus, and before the time of the 
emperor Charlemaine, nor in the book of the abbot Ratoldus 
there, which was written above seven hundred years ago, nor 
in the ancient manuscript Pontifical of England, which is 
kept and at this day to be seen in the library of Notre Dame 
church at Rouen. All which is averred and certified by 
Menardus? the Benedictine (who took the pains to look and 
search into them all) in his notes upon 8. Gregory’s Sacra- 
mentary. 

[9.1 Nor is any such direction given in the fourth council 
of Carthage*, where all things that be material and requisite 
to ordination are particularly set down. 

[4.] 5. Gregory saith directly, that by these words, ‘“ Re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost,” &c., Christ ordained His apostles. 

[5.] Nor did any of the ancient writers in the books of ec- 
clesiastical offices ever make mention of any other words but 


2 [See Hugonis Menardi Observa- 
tiones in Libr. Sacramentorum, not. 
. 757.—S. Gregorii op., tom. iii. col. 

504.—Tandem in Pontificali Romano 
sequitur traditio patenz cum hostia su- 
perposita, et calicis cum vino et aqua, 
sub hac verborum forma : ‘ Accipe po- 
testatem offerre sacrificium Deo, tam 
pro vivis quam pro defunctis, in no- 
mine Domini.’ In Ordinibus MSS. 
sancti Germani a Pratis, et Tiliano, et 
in Ordine Romano, extat ejusmodi in- 
strumentorum traditio cum sua forma, 
quz tamen ibi pluraliter effertur: ‘ Ac- 
cipite potestatem,’ &c. ; nec in eis ulla 
fit aque mentio. Sed hee traditio eum 
sua forma deest in Sacramentariis ex- 
cusis, ut in codicibus MSS, Remensi, 
Rodradi, sancti Eligii, et Ratoldi, atque 
etiam in Pontificali MS. quod putatur 


esse Anglicanum. | 

* [ Ibid.—Non habetur etiam in con- 
cilio Carthag. IV. toties citato, nee in 
concilio Toletano IV. can. 27; neque 
ulli antiqui patres mentionem aliquando 
fecerunt : non sanctus [sidorus, non 
Amalarius, non Rabanus, non Consti- 
tutiones Apostolice, lib. viii. cap. 16, 
et seqq., non omnium antiquissimus 
Dionysius Magnus, qui de Sacris Or- 
dinibus dedita opera et ex professo 
tractavere ; nihilque simile in Sacris 
Scripturis repereris: neque Christus 
in suprema illa czna, apostolos insti- 
tuens sacerdotes, illis ejusmodi por- 
rexit instrumenta; nec tum tradidit 
eis panem et vinum, sed Corpus Suum 
et Sanguinem sub speciebus panis et 
vini. | 


s2 


260 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


these, or of any such custom as the Roman Church now 
useth: not S. Isidore, not Amalarius, not Rabanus, not 
Dionysius, nor Clemens Romanus himself, who all wrote 
professedly and of purpose to set forth the rites and forms 
of the Church in conferring of holy orders. 

[6.] Nor is there to this effect any thing in Scripture,— 
not at the institution of the blessed Sacrament in Christ’s last 
Supper; where the doctors of the Roman Church will not 
say that He gave His apostles any bread and wine unconse- 
crate, as they now give their Priests at an ordination, nor 
that He said, “Take you authority to offer sacrifice for the 
quick and the dead,’ but “Do this in remembrance of 
Me;” which was spoken to these not as apostles only, but 
for all communicants besides, as is clear by S. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 

7. Hereunto may be added the custom of the Oriental? or 
Greek Church in all ages heretofore, and at this present time 
besides ; where at the ordaining of their Priests, the Bishop 
useth no such form of delivering the paten and the chalice, 
or of saying any such words as be now annexed to that cere- 
mony in the Church of Rome. Their manner of their ordina- 
tion is to be seen in their Euchologion, which is every where 
extant. Nor did the Church of Rome for all this ever ac- 
count or say, that their ordination was invalid; but at this 
day it permits the Greek Priests to say mass among them, 
and the Romans are not shy to be present at it, both at home 
and abroad, and to hear them, which they would never do if 
they held not the Greek Priests to be truly ordained, not- 
withstanding they had neither paten nor chalice given them 
with bread and wine into their hands, nor the words of offer- 
ing sacrifice for the quick and the dead spoken to them when 
they were made Priests. 


Again, in or rather after the council of Florence’, (where 
b [Ibid.— His consentit Ecclesia 


Orientalis, seu Greca, que ejusmodi 
instrumentorum traditione in presby- 


intolerabilis idolatria, si 
vere ordinati. 
¢ [Ibid.—Neque in concilio Flo- 


non essent 


terorum ordinatione non utitur, ut pa- 
lam est ex eorum Euchologio, quod 
infra sumus producturi: nec tamen 
Ecclesia Romana unquam eorum or- 
dinationem improbavit, que permittit 
ut apud nos Greci presbyteri missas 
faciant, nobis eas audientibus, quemad- 
modum etiam in eorum regione faci- 
mus, illis celebrantibus: quod esset 


rentino, in quo Greci cum Ecclesia 
Romana sunt reconciliati, unquam de 
eorum ordinationibus dubitatum est; 
neque in unione Armenorum, cum 
ipsis Armenis Eugenius IV. tradidit 
ritum Ecclesise Romanz in ordina- 
tionibus observandum, pristinas eorum 
ordinationes irritavit. ] 


IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 261 


this rite was first brought into the canon by the Pope and 
enjoined to be used in the Roman Church,) it was not decreed 
to be an essential part of ordination, or that no priesthood was 
good and valid without it, but only added by the Pope as an ac- 
cessory and necessary ceremony by his canon and injunction, 
which he thought fit (as some particular Bishops had done 
before) to be used in the giving of orders: for otherwise, had 
he held it to be essential and necessary of itself, he would 
never have been content to be reconciled to the Greeks, (as 
then they were for a while,) nor have admitted their Priests 
into the communion of the Roman Church, before they had 
been ordained anew and made true Priests, which those of 
the Roman party never required at their hands, nor so much 
as ever doubted of their ordination. 

8. Therefore Pope Eugenius the Fourth, when he made an 
union with the Armenians, and gave them the form of ordi- 
nation® used in the Church of Rome, to be observed among 
them,—he did not withal tell them to pronounce that their 
former ordinations were void for want of this new ceremony 
and form of words. 

9. Nor did Pope Clement the Eighth, when he received 
the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of Russia® into union and 
favour with the Roman Church, think it requisite that they 
should be re-ordained for want of the same ceremony and 
form of words in the first ordination which they had accord- 
ing to the manner of the Greeks ; as without doubt he must 
and would have done, if he had for that cause thought their 
orders to be invalid and void. 

10. After all this the council of Trent itself, which made 


4 Petr. Arcudius de Sacr. ]. 6. [See 
Menandr. not. ad S. Greg. Sacram., 
ubi supr. col. 506.—Non est quod quis 
opponat bullam Eugenii IV., in qua 
videtur materiam Diaconatus et Pres- 
byteratus in traditione instrumentorum 
constituere, siquidem explicanda est de 
materia accessoria, vel de integrante, 
ut aliis placet. Nonnulli dicunt ma- 
terias fuisse dilatatas. Si vero Ponti- 
fex nullam fecit mentionem imposi- 
tionis manuum, id factum est, quia 
jam erat in usu apud Armenos, quibus 
peculiarem Ecclesie Romane ritum 
tradere volebat. Plura vide apud Pe- 
trum Arcudium, lib. vi. de sacramento 


ordinis, cujus opus Rome approbatum 
est auctoritate Pauli V. Pontificis Max- 
imi.—Conf. Pet. Arcud., lib. vi. de Sa- 
cram. Ord. cap. 5.—Lib. de Concordia 
Ecclesie occidentalis et orientalis in 
septem sacramentorum administratione; 
ed. Lut. Par. 1626, p. 442, et seq. | 

€ Tbid.— Neque Clemens VIII. Rus- 
sorum episcopos, presbyteros, et Dia- 
conos, qui ritum Greecorum servabant 
etiam in suis ordinationibus, cum eos 
in gratiam Ecclesia Romane recepit, 
iterum ordinari censuit. Itaque di- 
cendum est materiam essentialem Dia- 
conatus, Presbyteratus, et Episcopa- 
tus, in manus impositione sitam esse. ] 


262 


many canons about the order of priesthood, made no canon at 
all about this particular ceremony, nor defined it to be neces- 
sary, nor declared any ordination to be invalid without it. 

11. And clear it is by that council of Trent‘, that Priests be 
then ordained, when the Bishop imposeth hands upon them, 
saying, “ Receive the Holy Ghost,” &c., and not when the paten 
and chalice are given them with the words of sacrificing for 
the quick and the dead,—a thing which the council doth not 
so much as mention, as certainly they would have done, if 
they had thought it essential, as Card. Bellarmine? confesseth 
in his first book de Sacram. Ordin. c. ix. 

12. But if Priests be ordained and made Priests when the 
Bishop saith to them, “ Receive the Holy Ghost,” &c., and im- 
poseth hands upon them, as is rightly declared in the council 
of Trent, (ubi supra, and sess. xii.® c. 3,) then must it of 
necessity follow, that, if they were made Priests before, (by the 
delivery of the paten with the unconsecrated host, and the 
chalice with wine also unconsecrated into their hands,-and by 
the words of giving them power to sacrifice,) they are twice 
ordained. For in the present Roman Pontifical the Bishop, 
after he hath given them the paten and chalice, &c., layeth 
hands upon every one of their heads, and saith unto them, 
* Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost remit,” &c. 
Therefore, either are they not ordained by the first ceremony, 
or else there is a re-ordination by the second; and re-ordina- 
tion was never yet admitted or approved by the Church, but 
utterly condemned in it. 

13. We may hereunto add the judgment of many learned 
writers and doctors of the Roman Church; as of Pope Inno- 


CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


f Sess. xxiii. can. 4. [Labbe, tom. 
xiv. col. 864.—Si quis dixerit, per sa- 
cram ordinationem non dari Spiritum 
Sanctum, ac proinde frustra episcopos 
dicere, ‘ Accipe Spiritum Sanctum;’ aut 
per eam non imprimicharacterem; sed 
eum, qui sacerdos semel fuit, Jaicum 
rursus fieri posse: anathema sit. | 

8. [Bellarm. de Sacram. Ord., lib. i. 
cap. 9. ὃ Ipsum.—Op. tom. iii. col. 1676. 
—Ipsum etiam Tridentinum concilium, 
(quod est observandum propter eos qui 
post concilium celebratum aliter sen- 
tiunt,) sess. xiv. cap. 3. De extrema 
unctione, dicit, ‘ Ministrum extremz 
unctionis esse episcopum, aut presby- 


terum rite ordinatum per manus impo- 
sitionem ;’ et, sess. xxiii. can. 4. De sa- 
cram. ordinis, habet hee verba: ‘Si 
quis dixerit,. ..(utsupr. not. f.) ana- 
thema sit.’ Ubi concilium declarat 
tunc ordinari presbyteros, et tune dari 
illis gratiam Spiritus Sancti, eum eis 
dicitur, ‘ Accipite Spiritum Sanctum.’ 
At, cum hoe dicitur, manus imponun- 
tur, ut patet ex Pontificali, et Ecclesiz 
consuetudine: ergo sentiebat concilium, 
illam impositionem manus esse de es- 
sentia. 

h [See Sess. xiv. cap. 3.de Extrema 
Unctione, as cited by Bellarmine, supr. 
not. g.— Labbe, tom. xiv. col. 822.] 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 263 
cent the Third, Card. Hostiensis, Johannes Andreas, and 


Panormitan the famous Abbot ; who knew well what they 
said, and have all declaredi, that this new ceremony of the 
paten and chalice is not of the substance or essence of 
ordination, and consequently that the order of priesthood 
is good and valid without it. 

14. Of the same mind is Maldonate the Jesuit, the learned 
and public Professor of Divinity in the University of Paris, 
who, in his book of the Sacraments, (p. 229,) saith, that “in 
the ancient Church there was never any mention made of 
this tradition of the host and chalice ;”” that it is “ not a matter 
of Catholic faith, nor expedient so to be taught ;” that it is 
“not to be found in Scripture ;” that the words of Christ to 
His apostles at His last Supper are “ not words of ordination, 
but of communion ;” and that “both the power over the 
mystical and the true Body of Christ is given rather by these 
words, ‘Whose sins thou dost remit,’ &c.,” than by the deliver- 
ing the host and the chalice, when a Priest is ordained; 
“because we read, that in the ancient Church both these 


powers were given only by imposition of hands :” as appears 


i [See Petr. Suay., Hist. Cone. Trid., 
lib. vii. art. 6, ed. August. Trin. 1620, 
p. 481; and Nicol. de Tudeschis, Ar- 
chiep. Panorm., Comm. in Decretal., 
lib. de Sacram. non iterand., cap. 3. 
Presbyter; ed. Lugd. 1586, tom. i. par. 
ii. fol. 51.—Conf. p. 256. supr., not. 
τη. 

J [See Joan. Maldonat., lib. de Or- 
dine, queest. iii. art. De materia et for- 
ma hujus sacramenti; ap. Disputat. de 
Septem Sacramentis, (ed. 4to. Lugd. 
1614.) tom. ii. p. 229.—In Scriptura, 
ubicunque fit mentio de ordinatione, 
declaratur per impositionem manuum. 
Et videtur mihi esse temerarium Scrip- 
turam deserere, et consectari chymeras, 
id est, rationales naturales. ..... οἵ 

Veterem Ecclesiam nunquam ordi- 
nasse sine impositione manuum, ex 
omnibus auctoribus antiquis perspi- 
cuum est. De traditione autem cali- 
cis et ae nulla est mentio apud 
ΠΟΘ τ ΡΝ 

Videtur nimis durum esse, ceremo- 
niam quam nobis perspicue tradunt 
apostoli excludere a natura sacramenti, 
et inducere illam de qua nulla mentio 
fit in Scriptura. . 

Tertia propositio est, quod traditio 


calicis et hostiz sit materia hujus 
sacramenti, non est fides Catholica, 
neque expedit ut pro fide doceatur, 
antequam Ecclesia declaret contra- 
rium. Hee propositio Ee : 

Primum, &e. . . 

(p- 280.) Quinta propositio est : 
Posito hane ceremoniam esse necessa- 
riam et vere materiam, non est cer- 
tum, sed tantum probabile, Christum 
in Coena, quando porrexit Corpus et 
Sanguinem Suum discipulis, hane ce- 
remoniam usurpasse. Quod non sit 
certum, perspicuum est ex illis verbis, 
* Accipite et manducate, et accipite et 
bibite ;” quz non sunt verba ordina- 
tionis, sed communionis. 

(p. 231.) Solent disputare scholas- 
tici, an potestas utraque detur simul 
per unam ceremoniam :—an vero illic 
cui impositz sint manus, pronuntiatis 
1115. verbis, “‘ Quorum remiseris pec- 
cata,’’ &c., sed non sit tradita materia, 
tantum possit administrare sacramen- 
tum peenitentie, sed non Eucharistiz. 
Respondeo, videri mihi probabilius 
dari simul utramque potestatem: quia 
in antiqua Ecclesia utramque datam 
legimus per impositionem manuum. } 


“264. CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


out of S. Austin de Bapt. contr. Donat. c. 1°, and contra Hpist. 
Parmen., 1. ii. 6.186, S. Ambrose de dign. Sacerd. c. 5°, and 
in 1 Tim. c. 4°; Conc. Nic. 1. c. ix.£; Antioch. c.10%; Car- 
thag. VI. c. 4 and 9"; Ancyr. c.10'; and Innocent. LI, 
Epist. 22 ad Epise. Maced. [Ὁ] 5*. “" 

15. To him agreeth the grave and learned Bishop Marianus 
Victorius! in his commentary upon the Epistle of Epiphanius, 
which he set forth together with those of 8. Hierome, affirm- 
ing that “ ordination was given by prayer and imposition of 
hands, as it was now also the use of the Church ;” and he 
wrote not long ago. 

16. And the Divines of the University of Paris™ have of 
late publicly defended as much, and set it forth for Catholic 
doctrine to the world; as in their Thes. 7° Junin 1633, out of 
Sirmondus, Antirrhetic. c. 8.‘ That imposition of hands is 
sufficient for the validity of ordination; 19. Jan. 1639. ‘That, 
in the ordaining of ministers, imposition of hands is the 
essential rite, and that all other ceremonies [are] only for a 
fuller or greater solemnity ;? 21. Jan. 1639. ‘That imposi- 
tion of hands in ordination is essential, and that the giving 


of books or vessels is but accessory.’ 
To these Menardus (who urgeth them) addeth his own” 


b [See lib. i. cap. i. ὃ 2—S. Aug. 
op., ed. Ben. Par. 1694, tom. ix. col. 
80. ]. 

¢ [See ὃ 28.—Ibid., col. 44. ] 

4 [See ὃ ult.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 
1690, tom. 11. Append. col. 363. | 

e [At v. 14.—Ibid., col. 298. | 

* | Labbe, tom. ii. col, 33. | 

8 [1014., col. 566. ] 

h [Scil. Niceni Concilii capit. 4, et 
9, in sexto apud Carthaginem concilio 
relect.— Ibid. ubi supr. col. 1595, 
1596.] 

i [ Labbe, tom. i. col. 1460.—Com- 
pare the version of Isid. Mercator, col. 
1473. ] 

® [ See Concilia Regia, ed. Par. 1644, 
tom. iv. p. 46.—See also §§ 3, 4. p. 45. ] 

' [| Menardus, super S. Greg. Sacram., 
ubi supr. col. 505, says: Multos alios 
pretermitto brevitatis causa. Non ta- 
men multus et nimius ero, si aucteri- 
tatem recentioris seriptoris viri gravis- 
simi et doctissimi Mariani Victorii, 
episcopi Amerini, protulero, qui ad 
epistolam sancti Epiphanii, que extat 
inter epistolas sancti Hieronymi, tom. 
li., Sie ait: ‘Ordinatio autem fiebat 


cum oratione, et manus impositione, 
quemadmodum nune Ecclesia utitur.’’ | 

m (See Menard., ubi supr.—His ac- 
cedit auctoritas Facultatis Theologice 
Pansiensis,.... in cujus Thesibus 
publicis hee doctrina vulgo defendi- 
tur; ut in quadam Thesi, 7 Junii, 
anno 1633, quam profert R. ae Doc- 
tissimus Pater Jacobus Sirmondus, 
cap. viii. Anterrhetici, cui inditum est: 
* Quibus ordinibus impositio est ma- 
nuum, his solam sufficere ad valorem 
firmitatemque sacramenti.”’ In thesi- 
bus Jacobi de Mont-ronge,.... die 19 
Januarii, anno 1639, ....in octava. 
positione hee habentur: ‘‘ In ordina- 
tione ministrorum reperitur symbolum, 
seu ritus externus, scilicet manus im- 
positio, qua in episcopis, presbyteris,. 
et diaconis, ut essentialis, designatur: 
cetera ad integritatem materie dun- 
taxat spectant.’”” In thesibus Renati 
Robeville, . ... 21 Junii, eodem anno, 
ἐν εν iM viii. positione heec videre licet: 
‘‘ Tmpositio manuum essentialis ma- 
teria, librorum aut vasorum porrectio 
accessoria;’”’ &c. 

® [Ibid.—Hiec igitur vides ordina- 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 265 


sentence and conclusion, that “‘ the tradition of the paten and 
the chalice, &c., in the ordaining of Priests, is not material ;’’ 
alleging these reasons ensuing for it, besides many of the 
former: 1. “ That if any such ceremony or form were essen- 
tial, it is a thing not to be imagined, that the old councils 
and fathers would have omitted it in those passages which 
they wrote of purpose about the conferring of holy orders :” 
2. “That the council of Carthage, though it made no Ponti- 
fical, yet it omitted nothing which essentially belonged to the 
ordaining of a Priest, no more than it did any thing which 
appertained to the lower orders; and that it might have as 
easily made mention of the paten and chalice, &c., (if they 
had been held requisite,) in giving of higher, as it did in 
giving of lower orders:” 3. “ That the fifth canon of that 
council, concerning the ordaining of a sub-deacon, makes the 
ease clear, where the empty paten and chalice are appointed 
to be given him, because he hath no imposition of hands: 
which implieth that, if imposition of hands had been given 
him, (as in the orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, it is,) 


tionem ad manuum impositionem im- 
pleri, et ad eamdem Spiritus Sancti 
gratiam conferri: ac proinde efficitur 
manuum impositionem non esse ordi- 
nationi accidentariam, sed esse solam 
dispositionem ad gratiam, ut quidam 
volunt. Preterea non est credibile, 
concilia et patres tantum de his que 
sunt ordinationi contingentia locutos 
fuisse, de his vero que sunt illi essen- 
tialia tacuisse, przsertim concilium 
Carthaginense IV., quod enucleatius 
omnia, que ad ordinum materiem 
spectant, describit. 

Nec valet id, quod quidam respon- 
dent, concilium non omnia posuisse, 
quia librum pontificalem non scribe- 
bat. Nam, etsi concilium librum Pon- 
tificalem non scriberet, non erat tamen 
adeo difficile ac tediosum traditionem 
instrumentorum in trium illorum ordi- 
num hierarchicorum explanatione an- 
notare; cum id una aut altera linea 
fieri potuisset, ut in inferioribus ordi- 
nibus factum fuerat. Przeterea libri 
Sacramentorum, a nobis producti, erant 
libri Pontificales, quibus utebantur Pon- 
tifices in ordinum collatione: ergo in 
illis omnes essentiales materiz assig- 
nantur: at nihil aliud continent, quam 
concilium Carthaginense IV. Igitur 
in ipso concilio omnes ordinum ma- 


teriz essentiales continentur. Cum 
autem concilium in hae parte mire 
conveniat cum Sacra Scriptura, aliis 
antiquis conciliis, patribus, ac libris 
sacramentorum, necessario concluditur 
illud, quoad materiz essentialis assig- 
nationem, in tribus illis ordinibus nihil 
pretermisisse. Deinde, si concilium 
materias essentiales inferiorum ordi- 
num tam diligenter assignavit, cur 
idem in aliis ordinibus, que sunt gravi- 
oris ponderis et momenti, non presti- 
terit? Si dicas ideo pratermissas fu- 
isse, quia vulgares et note sunt, idem 
etiam de materiis inferiorum ordinum, 
quz sunt que vulgares ac note, di- 
cendum erit. 

Tandem hee doctrina manifeste col- 
ligitur ex eodem concilio, can. 5; ubi 
agens de ordinatione subdiaconi sic 
ait: ‘* Subdiaconus cum ordinatur, 
quia manus impositionem non accipit, 
patenam de manu episcopi accipiat va- 
cuam, et calicem vacuam,’”’ &c. Si 
igitur traduntur instrumenta subdia- 
cono, quia non ei manus imponuntur, 
recte sequitur, tribus illis superioribus 
ordinibus non esse necessariam instru- 
mentorum traditionem, quia manus illis 
imponuntur; ae proinde nihil de ma- 
teria illis essentiali a concilio fuisse 
pretermissum. ἢ 


266 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


the delivery of the paten and chalice might have been spared, 
(as in those three orders also it was at that time:)” 4. “ And 
that the old Sacramentals (afore mentioned) were the Ponti- 
ficals of those ages wherein they were written, and the forms 
which the Bishops then used in giving of orders, which can- 
not be supposed to want any of the essentials requisite there- 
unto: and, in them there being no such ceremony as the de- 
livery of the paten and chalice, &c., to the priest, it must 
needs follow that no such thing was requisite or material to 
that order.” 

There be no writers before the schoolmen, that thought 
otherwise, or so much as made any question about it. And 
those among them who are for the new opinion so generally 
conclude with a Videtur probabile, that it seems but probable 
at the best; and therefore there is no necessity to hold it. 
Thestext are altesether. 29... sete 


The rest of this is not yet found®; and that which is written 
thus far is not in the Bishop’s own hand, but the copy is very fair. 
—( Note in Dr. Smith’s copy. | 


[copy OF THE SECOND LETTER, AS REWRITTEN ON THE RECEIPT OF F. Pas 
REPLY TO THE FIRST LETTER, AND SO SENT TO HIM. | 


Salutem in Christo. 
Sir, 

I am told im a letter, which you wrote lately to a lady here 
at court, that we are to expect somewhat from you by the 
next post, which you intend to return as an answer to the 
paper you received from her at Paris. When that answer 
comes, we shall see, what it is that hath put your fatherhood 
into this fit of admiration, et guzd dignum tanto—that you 
should “‘ admire the man did let such a paper go out of his 
hands, wherein he hath not shewed either the sufficiency or 
the honesty which you conceived to be in him.” If it be 
such kind of language, (which, by your good favour, sir, was 
but somewhat unseemly,) that we are to expect from you 
hereafter, I am to tell you beforehand, that it will neither 

° [The conclusion of the letter which Cosin sent it to the Prior, will supply 


next follows, and which is the same what is here wanting. ] 
letter in the extended form in which 





ΙΝ THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 267 


satisfy the lady, nor any body else here among us, who shall 
chance to read what you intend to write to us; unless we be 
satisfied that you want good matter wherewith to maintain 
your new opinion, when you fly out into such bad terms (as 
these be) against them that oppose it ; and withal forget that 
eivility and urbanity of language, to which you pretended, 
when you were here amongst us. In the meanwhile I as- 
sure myself, that the paper which was given you (and writ- 
ten at your own desire) will be able to defend itself both 
for sufficiency and honesty, notwithstanding any thing that 
you have to say against it. 

It was a paper (if you remember yourself well) written for 
your own satisfaction, when, discoursing upon the matter 
and form of ordination used in the Church of England, 
(which you affirmed to want both matter and form, that is, 
your paten and chalice, cum sud formd verborum, ‘ Accipe 
potestatem sacrificand: pro vivis et mortuis,’) you denied, that 
by imposition of the Bishop’s hands, and by virtue of these 
words of our Saviour thereunto annexed, ‘‘ Receive the Holy 
Ghost: whose sins thou dost remit, they are remitted,” &c. 
holy orders were conferred; and therefore desired to have it 
shewed you in writing, that any of the ancient fathers were 
of another mind. 

To this purpose, therefore, was that paper! drawn up for 1 [i. ὁ. the 
you, and as largely as the shortness of the time then allowed stletter-] 
by your haste to go out of town would permit: wherein there 
were divers testimonies alleged, to let you see that both 
fathers and others were of our mind, and that Christ gave 
. His Apostles the power of holy orders by the words that we 8. John 
use in our Church. ΣΕΊΩΝ 

Which? words (I shall be bold to tell you once again) had 
not your pontifical retained in making your Priests, it might 
well have been doubted, (for all your ‘ Accipe potestatem sacri- 
ficandi pro vivis et mortuis,) whether you had any Priests at 
all among you, or no. But these words (as I said) have 
been retained in your Church as the only operative and 
essential words for the conferring of Priesthood; and so are 
your orders saved to you. 


P [Compare Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on ὃ. Joh, xx. 22; supr. citat. 
p. 254. not. ad lit. ἃ. 


S. Luke 
xxii. 19, 
20. 


268 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


I had thought now we should not have had any further 
dispute about this matter. But, seeing you mean to make a 
business of it, and that the former paper hath not given you 
such satisfaction as you expected,—en tibi discursum alterum et 
magis copiosum, magis nervosum, to let you see, that we have 
both “sufficiency” and “honesty” enough to prove what is 
said for the defence of our Church in this particular, and to 
try what both your sufficiency and honesty hath to say 
against it. 

I shall therefore shew you, that the opinion which you 
took upon you to maintain is no point either of Catholic 
doctrine, or of Catholic practice; and to this end I shall 
make it clearly appear : 

1. That the tradition of the paten and the chalice, cum sud 
formd verborum, (‘Take thou authority to offer sacrifice for the 
quick and the dead,’) is not necessary, or essentially required, 
to the ordaining of a Priest, as you pretend it is: 

2. That there is no such example, command, or custom, to 
be found either in the Holy Scripture, or in the ancient use 
of the Church, as you imagine there is: 

3. That the Church of Rome itself, even since it added 
that ceremony to their pontifical, doth not exact it as be- 
longing to the substance of ordination, but acknowledgeth 
the order of Priesthood to be good and valid without it, 
which you do not: 

4. And therefore, that the form used in the Church of 
England is not defective in any thing which doth truly, sub- 
stantially, and essentially belong to the conferring of that 
sacred order, as you say it is. 

Of all which (referendo singula singulis) I shall render you 
this account. fs 

1. And, if you please, we will begin with the Scripture : 
wherein you shall not be able to find any thing for your pur- 
pose. Not in Cena Domini. 1. Neither for your matter of the 
paten and the chalice, which (if ever you come to be a Bishop) 
you must give to the Priests that you are to make, without 
any consecrated? host or wine in them at all. I trow Christ 
did not so. 2. Nor for your form of words, ‘ Aecipe potes- 
tatem sacrificandi, &e. For Christ’s ‘ Hoc facite, &e., will not 


4 Pontif. Rom. [See edit. Clem. VIII., Rome, 1595, p. 67. ] 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 969 


reach so far, as that every one, who is hereby required to do 

this in remembrance of Him, should be thereby ny 

made a! Priest. It is plain that the words were spoken by ![« sacri- 
our Saviour to His Apostles as they represented the whole MS Berl] 
Church (and not the Clergy only) that were afterwards 

to communicate? of His Blessed Sacrament, and that they 2 [« Cone. 
relate ad totum complexum, to ‘ Accipite, edite,’ et “ Bibite ex hoc ee Sis 
omnes:’ all which I trust are not for Priests alone to do, Pe 
(unless you will take away the host also from other commu- eee 
nicants, as you have done the chalice™:) repeated therefore 

by S. Paul, and applied to all them that were at Corinth, es xi. 
people and all’, that, as often as they came together to cele- 7° 

brate the Lord’s Supper, they should do it in commemoration 

of Him, or shew forth the Lord’s death till He come. Which 

made the Jesuit Maldonate, and your own monk of S. Benet’s 

order, Menardus, ingenuously* to confess, that these words of 

Christ to His Apostles at His last Supper were not words of 
ordination, but of communion®, and that He delivered no 4[« when 


host or chalice unconsecrate (as you do) in a ceremony, but τ: ad 
His Body and Blood in a Sacrament. cite,’”— 
MS. Barl. ] 


Then in the Apostles’ times, and in their manner of giving 
of Holy Orders, you shall be able to find as little for you. 1 Tim. iv. 
Imposition of hands", (to which, as the Catholic Church in all = 
ages hath taught us, ihe words now in use with us and you 
both; in the performance of that act, were always annexed,) 
they both used and required. But of your paten and chalice 
cum formd annexd, to offer sacrifice for quick and dead, there 
is: not a word to be seen in all their writings or examples. 

And yet you say that no man can be made a Priest with- 
out them. 

2. Next go we tothe fathers. And, because they be not now 
all at hand, I trust you will take it upon Cardinal Bellarmine’s * 


τ Conc. Const. sess. xiii. [Labbe, 14.—Comment. in Epist., ed. Par. 1658, 
tom. xii. col. 100. ] Ῥ. 797.—Notandum est, in hujusmodi 
5 Cone. Trid. sess. xiii.cap.2.[Labbe, scripturis a parte totum significari. 


tom. xiv. col. 805.] In Illius sump- 
tione colere nos sui memoriam przce- 
pit (Christus, &c.) ...ut id ipsum 
omnes diceremus, &c.—Ib. x. 26. [? ]. 

t [More ingenuously than you 
would do at our conference.’’—Barl. 
MS. ] 

u Estius in locum, [scil. 1 Tim. iv. 


Non enim solum manus imponebantur 
ordinando, verum etiam verba mystica 
proferebantur: (which verba mystica 
were ever held to be ‘ decipe Spiritum 
Sanctum,’ &c.) | 

x De R. P., 1. i. c. 12. ὃ His igitur. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 658.) 


1 he Ch. 
xviii. 18.” 
—MS. 
Barl. } 

2 iiss Ch. 
xx. 21,."— 
MS.Barl.] 


270 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


credit (as I said) for once, that, notwithstanding his own 
private opinion was, “ Apostolos non factos sacerdotes nisi in ult. 
Cend,’ yet the common exposition of the fathers ¥, 5. Hilary, 
S. Jerome, S. Austin, Anselm, and others, understood the 
power of order to be promised in S. Matthew’, and to be 
given in S. John? (after Christ was risen) by those very words, 
which we and you likewise use in our ordination of a Priest. 
For let me not be told that the fathers have understood the 
words of making Bishops only, or that Bellarmine? so under- 
stood them: for the practice of the Universal Church and 
your own Roman pontifical is against it, where you use those 
words at the ordination of your Priests. And, when you do 
so, I do not think your ordaimer (or your Church rather by 
this office) intends to make them all Bishops, or to give them 
a power of conferring orders upon others: (this would make 
pretty well for the Presbyterian practice, with whom every 
Priest is as good as a Bishop:) but only to exercise that 
power of order, which by those words is given and conferred 
upon themselves, the order of Priesthood. 

But, besides these fathers, 8. Cyril of Alexandria® is plain, 
that our Lord did then ordain His Apostles; and 8S. Cyprian, 
that by these words after His resurrection they were “ Evange- 
licé et Dominica ordinatione fundati,’ and had a power given 
them to be ministers of His holy Sacraments. Where, if any 
exception be taken against the authority of S. Cyprian” in 
that place, (who maintaining his error of rebaptization,) it 
will hurt us nothing at all: for his error was not, (nor was it 
ever objected against him, being in this Catholic and ortho- 
dox enough,) that the Priests of the Gospel were ordained 


Υ § Et quamvis. [ Ibid. ] 

z Planum est, &c.... Apostolos fac- 
tos esse Episcopos et Pastores post Re- 
surrectionem.—Nam, Jo. xx., Dominus 
ait eis, ‘Pax vobis: sicut misit Me 
Pater, et Ego mitto vos,’ &c.: ... fecit 
enim his yerbis eos quasi legatos et 
nomine suo gubernatores Kcclesiz ; 
verbis autem sequentibus, ‘ Accipite 
Spiritum Sanctum: Quorum,’ &e.... 
dedit eis potestatem ordinis, ut supra 
diximus.—Bell. de R. P. 1. 1. [e.] 12. 
§ His, et Dices; [ubi supr. coll. 658, 
661. } 

* S. Cyr. in Johan. [lib. xii. sect. 


super cap. xx. v. 22, 23.—S. Cyrilli 
Alex. op., ed. Lutetiz 1638, tom. iv. 
p- 1096.—6 δὲ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς 6 Χρι- 
στὺς, εἰς ἀληθείας δύναμιν τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ 
νόμου μεταθεὶς, τοῦς τῶν θείων θυσιασ- 
τηρίων ἱερουργοὺς τελειοῖ δι ἑαυτοῦ. 
καὶ γάρ ἐστιν αὐτὺς ὃ τῆς τελειώσεως 
κριός. τελειοῖ δὲ δι’ ἁγιασμοῦ τοῦ κατὰ 
ἀληθείαν τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως κοινωνοὺς 
διὰ τῆς τοῦ Πνέυματος μετουσίας ava- 
δεικνὺς, καὶ μεταχαλκεύων τρόπον τινὰ 
τὴν ἀνθρώπου φύσιν εἰς τὴν ὑπὲρ ἄν- 
θρωπον δύναμίν τε καὶ δόξαν. | 
b Ep. 73. 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 271 


and founded upon those words of our Saviour. But his error 
only was, (which toucheth not our case in hand,) that the 
Sacrament of Baptism was void, if any heretic had given it. 
So that these fathers are for us, and for our manner of 
ordaining Priests in the Church of England: not a word in 
them all of that which you require, to have the paten and the 
chalice given them with an express power to offer sacrifice for 
the quick and dead, or else to be no Priests at all. 

There were others among the fathers and ancient writers 
of the Church, S.Clement, S. Denis, S. Isidore, besides Amala- 
rius Fortunatus, and Rabanus Maurus, who wrote all pro- 
fessedly and of purpose to set forth the rites and forms of their 
Churches in conferring of holy orders. And in the fourth 
council of Carthage, in Afric, the manner and form of ordi- 
nation are particularly set down. In all which there is not 
any mention of that new matter and form of yours, which 
you say is so requisite for the ordering of a Priest®. And 
truly, if it had been so necessary as you would make it, I 
marvel much that none of all those ancient fathers, writers, 
and councils, should hit upon it. For it is a thing (as one 
of your own order! acknowledgeth) not to be imagined, that, 1 Menar- 
if such ceremony or form had been essential, they would in dus 
all those passages, which they wrote of purpose about such 
forms, have quite omitted that. But they are not for you. 

3. No more is yourown Roman Church?: wherein 8. Gregory S. Greg. 
wrote his Sacramentary, or ritual, above a thousand years 
since; and there® shall you find the form of ordination used 
of old in the city and Church of Rome; but concerning the 
_paten and the chalice (the delivery whereof to a Priest you 
say is so material and essential) you shall not find a word. 

After his time there were many forms dispersed abroad in The old 
several other churches of the west, which were the pontificals ed 
of those ages wherein they were written, and the precedents cals. 
which the Bishops followed in giving of orders. There is a 
manuscript pontifical in the Church of Rheims, written and 


¢ [ You will find neither paten, Greek.’’—MS. Barl.] 


nor chalice, nor sacrifice for the quick € [See lib. Sacram., Ord. qualiter in 
and the dead, in any of them all.”— Rom. Eccl. Diaconi et Presbyteri or- 
MS. Barl.] dinandi sunt.—S. Greg. op., tom. 11]. 


d [Neither old, nor new, some 60]. 224. ] 
few private doctors excepted; nor the 


972 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


used above eight hundred years by-past in the time of Charles 
the Great: another in the monastery of S. Peter’s, at Cor- 
bey, written and used about the same time: another there, 
which they call the manuscript of S. Ehgius, more than eight 
hundred years old: besides another, which bears the name 
of the Abbot Ratoldus, who lived about an hundred years 
after. There is yet another, an ancient manuscript pontifical 
of England, which is kept at this day m the Church of Notre 
Dame, at Rouen. Menardus the Benedictine (whom I trow 
you will believe) took the pains to “ go and search into them 
all.” He saith, “there is not in any of them any one word 
to be seen either of your paten or your chalice, or your form 
of words, to offer sacrifice for the quick and dead.” And, if 
somebody else (one of your own countrymen, though not of 
your own order) may find the hke credit with you, (but 
whether he does or no,) there be divers Saxon manuscripts 
(the pontificals of those times) to be seen in England, gathered 
and preserved by Sir Robert Cotton in his famous library, 
wherein the form of ordaining Priests there is set down as 
ours is (and we follow our own forefathers in it) without any 
such ceremony as you think so necessary to their ordination. 
So that none of these old Churches are for you. And yet I hope, 
that neither you nor any of your new opinion will be so bold 
as to say, that they wanted priesthood among them in those 
days. But, if you confess their priesthood, you must confess 
ours also, notwithstanding the omission of your traditio pa- 
tene, &e., cum sud formd. 

TheGreeck 4. Go we yet further to the Oriental or Greek Churches. I 

Church. urge not their authority nor their custom, because you are 
fallen out with them, and regard them not. But, if their 
priesthood hath any allowance from the Pope and the Church 
of Rome, I trust you will regard that allowance at least, and 
then must you not condemn them, as you do us, for want of 
your new ceremony, which they have not (neither matter nor 
form) in their manner of ordination extant in their Eucho- 
logion. For at Rome and Venice they permit the Greek 
Priests to say mass among them; and the Romanists there 
are not so nice, but otherwhiles they can be present‘ at those 


f Ecclesia Orientalis, seu Greca,... non utitur, &c.... Nee tamen Ee- 
hujygmodi instrumentorum traditione clesia Romana unquam eorum ordi- 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 273 


masses also; and, when they go abroad, they can hear them 
without scruple in the Eastern countries; which I believe 
they would never do, if the governors of the Church were of 
the same mind at Rome or at Venice, that you are now of at 
S. Malo$, and were a while since at Paris; that is, if they held 
the Greeks to be no Priests for want of the paten and chalice 
with the words annexed. Pope Eugenius himself, the fourth 
of that name, when he made an union" with the Armenians, 
and gave them at that time the form of ordination which was 
then used in the Roman Church, to be thereafter observed 
among them, he did not presently pronounce and tell them 
(as you do us) that all their former ordinations were void for 
want of traditio patene, &c., cum formd. 

Nor did Pope Clement the Eighth' (when he received the 
clergy of Russia! into favour and unity with the Church of! [« Some 
Rome) think it requisite, that they should be re-ordained ; as Sane 
without doubt he would have done, had he been of your hard Barl.] 
opinion, that formerly they had no true Priests among them. 
For they were all ordained after the manner of the Greeks. 

Besides, in the council of Florence (where there was for 
a while a reconciliation made between the East and West 
churches) there was not any of the Roman party ever heard 
to make doubt, whether the Greek Priests had true orders, or 
no; but accounted them to be as good Priests as their own. 

Nor did they in that council, but the Pope after the coun- 
cil was risen and gone, (by whom this new ceremony was 
first brought ito the canon, for before it was free,) make any 
decree or declaration, that it was any essential part of ordina- 
tion, or that no priesthood was good and valid without it, or 
that it should be so much as an accessory ceremony ; howso- 
ever by the Pope’s instruction it was thought fit to be used. 

After all this comes the council of Trent *, whose authority 


nationem improbavit, que permittit ut 
apud nos Greci presbyteri missas fa- 
ciant, nobis eas audientibus ; quemad- 
modum etiam in eorum regione faci- 
- mus, illis celebrantibus.—Menardus, 
[ap. S. Greg. op., tom. iii. col. 504. ] 

8 [Where was a monastery of Eng- 
lish Benedictines. ] 

ΒΡ Arcud. de Sacr. Ord., ]. 6.—Cu- 
jus opus Rome approbatum est aucto- 
ritate Pauli V. Pont. [See Menard. in 


COSIN. 


Greg. lib. Sacram., ubi supr. col. 506. | 

i [See the foregoing paper, § 9, p. 
261, not. e. } 

k Sess. xxiii. c. 4. [Labbe, tom. xiv. 
col. 864. ]—Si quis dixerit, per sacram 
ordinationem non dari Spiritum Sanc- 
tum, ac proinde frustra Episcopos di- 
cere, ‘ Accipe Spiritum Sanctum ;’ aut 
per eam non imprimi characterem, vel 
eum qui Sacerdos semel fuerit posse 
rursus fieri laicum ; anathema sit. 


274: CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


(though you be in France) you will hardly decline ; where to 
us it is clear, that in their judgment Priests be then made 
and ordained, when the Bishop saith, ‘ Receive the Holy 
Ghost,” &e., that is, when he imposeth hands upon them, as 
is appointed in the Pontifical, and not when he saith, ‘ Ace7- 
pite potestatem sacrificandi, &c., that is, when he gives them 
the paten and the chalice, which the council doth not men- 
tion. And, if you should hold yourself to your own opinion 
still, I do not see how you can avoid a re-ordination!, which 
you know to have ever been condemned and forbidden in 
the Church. 

5. Lurge you last of all with the judgment of many learned 
writers, who are famous among you: as, 

Of Pope Innocent the Third, of Cardinal Hostiensis, of 
Joannes Andreas, and of Panormitan, who™ knew all well what 
they said, and have all declared, that this your new ceremony 
of the paten and the chalice is “not of the substance or 
essence of ordination ;᾽ and consequently, that the order of 
priesthood is good and valid without it: 

Of Maldonate, the Professor of Divinity in Paris, who in 
his book of the Sacraments (p. 229) will tell you", that “in 
the ancient Church there was never any mention made of 
this your tradition of the host and chalice :” that it is “ not 
a matter of Catholic faith, nor expedient so to be taught °:” 
that “no such thing is to be found in Scripture,” (as the 
matter and form of all sacraments ought to be:) that “ the 
words of Christ to His Apostles at His last Supper are not 
words of ordination, but of communion ;” and that “the 
power both over the mystical and the true Body of Christ is 
given rather by those words, ‘ Whose sins thou dost remit,’ &c., 
and by the imposition of hands, than by the delivery of the 

1[“and”— host or! chalice :’—for which purpose he hath cited divers 
MS. Barl.] of the fathers, S. Austin, and 8. Ambrose, the council of 


1 [In the Barlow MS. the following οἵ priesthood, which neither you nor I 


words occur: .... ‘* or that your own 
priests be twice ordered. For, if your 
matter and form make them priests, (as 
you say they do,) and when that is 
past, if they be made priests by the 
Bishop’s saying, ‘ Receive the Holy 
Ghost,’ &c. (as the council of Trent 
acknowledgeth them to be,) then are 
they twice imprinted with the character 


must allow.’’] 

m [See the preceding paper, § 13, p. 
263, not. i; also p. 256, not. m.] 

o (Item, ὃ 14, p. 263, not. j.] 

° [ As you would have taught it 
that honourable person, whom you in- 
tended thereby to have withdrawn from 
our Church and Religion’? — MS. 
Barl. | 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 275 


Nice, Antioch, and Carthage, besides Pope Innocent in his 
Hpistles : 

Of Marianus Victorius, who, in his commentary upon the 
Epistle of Epiphanius? among those of 8. Jerome, will tell 
you, that orders were given of old, (and are so still,) “by 
prayer and imposition of hands ;” together with which im- 
position of hands the form of words! annexed and prescribed 
in your Pontifical, as well as in ours, was never omitted : 


1[S. John 
KK. 22, 20- 
—MS. 


And, lastly, of the Divines now living in the University of Barl.] 


Paris, who have oftentimes maintained and published it for 
good Catholic doctrine 4, that in the ordination of ministers 
imposition of hands is the essential rite, the tradition of your 
vessels and the usage of other ceremonies but accessory, or 
added for the more solemn performance of the action. And, 
if you had been pleased to make no more of it, all this 
labour might have been saved. 

I will end, when I have only let you know, that there be 
no writers before some of the schoolmen, (who took delight 
to make a question of any thing, and guieta movere,) that 
thought otherwise of it; and that those among them, who 
chose rather to be of the new opinion, do generally conclude 
it with a videtur probabile, that it seems but probable at the 
best : so it is no dogmatical point of faith. And therefore 
we shall (with sufficiency and honesty enough) conclude it, 
that there is no necessity to hold it. For other school doctors 
there be, that are altogether against it: who (if need were, 
after so many witnesses,) might be produced in this case. 
Sed Avidii Vari illud hic valeat: Aut hoc quod produxi tes- 
tium satis est, aut nihil satis". 

But, if you have a mind to discourse this matter any fur- 
ther hereafter, I wish you would remember yourself, and re- 
frain from any such terms as you have already put into your 
prologue, wherein I shall not follow you. 

Yet, if your sufficiency lies that way, there be those to be 


» [See Mariani Victorii schol. viii., 
in Epiphanii epist. ad Joan. Epise. 
Hierosol.; epist. lx. ap. S. Hieronymi 
op., ed. Par. 1602, tom. ii. col. 228.— 
Ordinatio autem fiebat cum oratione et 
manus impositione, quemadmodum 
nunc Ecclesia utitur. Sie septem 
Diaconos ... ab Apostolis in hune 


ἐν 


modum ordinatione fuisse; &c.—See 
above, p. 264, not. 1.] 

4 Sirmondi Antirrhet., c. 8.—Th. 7 
Junii 16338; 19 Jan. 1639; 21 Jan. 
1639. [See p. 264, not. m. ] 

τ [Vid. Cic. de Finibus, lib. ii. 6. 
19.] 


) 


~ 


276 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS, &c. 


found, that will be as good at it as ever your fatherhood was. 
To whom I shall otherwise always profess my due respects, 
and shew myself to be, Sir, 
your most assured 
and humble servant, 


From the Court at S. Germains, J.C. 
July 11, 1645. 


Sir, 

This inclosed (most of it) was prepared for you a fort- 
night since ; but now (upon the occasion given by your letter) 
you have it with some advantage from 


your servant, J.C. 


I desire the favour from you, that my most humble service 
and thanks may be presented to all the fathers of your 
monastery, especially to Father Francis, who hath been my 
benefactor with his two books of devotions. I wish I had 
the third, and another that he had in voto, De necessario cre- 
dendis. 


S. Germ. July 12. 





ἜΤΗ OF ΠΡ ANSWER ΤΟ THE 
FIRST PAPER 


CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS IN THE 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 


I PRoMIsED in my second paper to justify the first, both 
for sufficiency and honesty, notwithstanding any thing that 
Father Paul had to say against it. That which he had to 
say being now come to my hands, 1 will, as near as I can, 
seriously answer all things of moment: with smaller matters 
I will deal as I think their quality doth require. 

I. Of the Priest’s power to consecrate, offer, and absolve : 
and wherein we differ or agree about it. 

Ἐς P.’s meaning here? is larger than his expression: for 
what he means by consecrating and offering our Lord’s 
Body upon the Altar we are taught afterwards by his terms 
of transubstantiation and real sacrificing of Christ for the 
quick and dead. 

There are two things wherein he would deceive the lady : 
1. At first, when he says, that there is no difference betwixt 
us about them. For, first, though it be good Catholic doc- 
trine that Priests receive power over the true Body of Christ, 
to consecrate and offer it upon the Altar in a true Catholic 
- sense, that is, by consecrating the elements so that they may 
become sacramentally the Body and Blood of Christ to us, 
and by making these a commemoration of that Sacrifice 
which was but once offered up for us upon the Cross, yet in’ 
his sense (as afterwards he expresseth it) of transubstantiation 
and a real sacrificing of Christ again for the quick and the 
dead, that is, for the souls in purgatory, it is not so; nor 
will he be ever able to prove it. 

A power to consecrate the Sacrament, and to make a 
memorial of the Sacrifice, we grant him: a power to tran- 


8. [See the beginning of F. P.’s letter, in the margin of ὃ 2: 


278 


CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


substantiate, and really to sacrifice Christ upon the Altar for 
the quick and the dead, we shall never grant him, that being 
a new doctrine which the Catholic Church never taught us. 
2. Then, secondly, if his meaning be no larger than his 
expression, we differ about the restraint of 
this power, when he says, it is but a 
double power, and confines the one to con- 
secrate and offer, and the other to absolv- 
ing, &c.; as if a Priest had no more to 
do but to consecrate, offer, and absolve, 
&c., and there an end of their priesthood. 
Indeed many of their Priests do no more, 
whose employment only is to say a private 
mass and to hear confession. But our 
Priests have somewhat else to do, to dispense the holy mys- 
teries in the Eucharist, to administer the sacrament of Bap- 
tism, to celebrate the rite of matrimony, to preach and to 
pray in the Church: for which purpose these words are added 
in our ordination, “And be thou a faithful dispenser,” &c. 
If it be not so in theirs also, (unless ‘ Accipe Spiritum Sanc- 
tum’ help them,) they are more defective than, thanks be 


F. P.—Madam, I must re- 
quest you to observe, that ac- 
cording to the Catholic doctrine 
the Priests of the law of Grace 
receive a double power, the one 
over the true Body of our Lord, 
by consecrating and offering It 
upon the Altar, the other over 
His mystical Body, which is His 
Church, by absolving from sins, 
&c. And of this there is no dif- 
ference betwixt the Doctor and 
us. 


to God, we in our Church are. 

II. Of Christ’s example pretended to be followed by the 
Church of Rome in giving of Orders. 

He pretends here, that Christ made His disciples Priests 


F. P.—As our Saviour did 
give these two powers at two se- 
veral times, (the power of conse- 
crating and offering His Body at 
His last Supper, the power of re- 
mission of sins after His resur- 
rection, ) so the Church of Rome 
has ever given these two powers 
by several ceremonies; the first 
by d.d. bread andwine, and saying, 
“Receive power to sacrifice for 
the livng and the dead,” which 
is the same with that of our Sa- 
viour, when, having consecrated, 
He said, ‘“‘ Do this,” &c.; the se- 
cond by imposition of hands, say- 
ing, ‘‘ Receive the Holy Ghost: 
whose sins,’ &e. 


not. 


at several times: whereunto I oppose all 
that hath been said before, and somewhat 
else that shall be added hereafter. In the 
mean while it will never be made clear, 
that the Church of Rome hath followed the 
example of Christ either by delivering bread 
and wine, or by saying, “ Receive power to 
offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead.” 
[1.1] For, first, they say themselves, that 
Christ gave His disciples no bread and 
wine at all, but His Body and Blood under 
the species or accidents of bread and wine 
only ; which they in their ordinations give 


2. What Christ gave, He gave to be eaten and to be 


drunk by them that took it: these men give the paten and 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 279 


the chalice with bread and wine in them, to be touched 
only with their hands, and no more. 3. The disciples 
in the last Supper represented the whole Church, and not 
those only that were to receive orders. For then should 
none but Priests communicate. 4. And therefore, “ Do this 
in remembrance of Me,” was not certainly only intended 
to them. Benedizxit, fregit, et dedit, might be so; but 
Accipite, comedite, et bibite, to all others besides. But, 
5. Suppose these words to be spoken to His disciples alone, 
in reference to the Benedizxit, fregit, et dedit, that is, to the 
consecration, fraction, and distribution of the holy Mys- 
teries, yet what affinity or likeness have these words, “ Do 
this in remembrance of Me,” with those which they now use 
of taking power to offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead? 
For, that Christ either offered any real sacrifice there, or 
instituted any other than commemorative sacrifice of what 
should be offered upon the Cross, is a mere invention of 
some late Priests for the advancement of their own private 
ends and benefit, but unknown to the ancient Catholic 
fathers, to whom this father should do well to adhere both 
in his judgment and practice. But, be- 5 p patie the Doctor had 
cause I am called on for logic, I would pleased to use more of his logic, 
wish him to consider well of this argu- ae ee Bee 
ment, which proves strongly, that Christ neither gave any 
such power of offering a real Christian Sacrifice in the 
Eucharist, nor that He did then make any such Sacrifice 
Himself. For, if He did, either that Sacrifice was propitiatory, 
or it was not. If it were not, then in the Eucharist there 
can be none such, because it was instituted according to His 
own pattern, “ Do this,” &c., that is, as | have done: ifit were, 
then did Christ in His last Supper redeem the world; and, if 
He redeemed the world, or became a propitiatory Sacrifice 
for it, there, then must it needs follow, that His Sacrifice 
upon the Cross was superfluous, and that S. Peter and S. John 
both were out, when they said,—the one, 1 Pet. ii., “Christ 
bare our sins on His Body upon the Cross,’—the other, 
Apoc. v., “ The Lamb, that was slain, and redeemed us by His 
Blood;” yea, and your Church and all, “ Pascha nostrum immo- 
latus est Christus : Ipse enim est verus Agnus, qui abstulit pec- 
cata mundi, et moriendo mortem destruxit :?’—which was at His 


280 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


Death, and not at the Eucharist. So there is no example of 
Christ followed, if your Priests’ have a power (as truly they 
have none) given them to offer Christ’s Body in the mass, 
as a real and propitiatory sacrifice to God the Father. Pro- 
pitiatory, by applying Christ’s propitiation, we shall grant 
him: but that will not serve his turn, nor ours neither, for a 
real and proper sacrificing of Christ, whereunto he pretends. 

III. Of the pretended defect in the form 

F. P.—The Church of Eng- 


land leaves out the former part, Of ordination used in the Church of Eng- 


which touches the true Body of Jand. 
Christ, and only reserves the lat- ἢ : : 
ter, touching the remission of The public profession and practice of 


oe in the ordering their minis- the Church of England (wherein he seems 
to know but little) confutes him. It leaves 
out nothing that is requisite, either touching the true or 
the mystical Body of Christ. For this is our form, when 
the Bishop imposeth hands upon any that is to be ordained a 
Priest: ‘“ Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins thou dost for- 
give, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, . 
they are retained: and be thou a faithful dispenser of the 
Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments: in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” 
Which is all that 5. Paul required in a minister, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 
** Let a man this wise esteem us, as the ministers of Christ 
and dispensers of the mysteries of God.” If we have all that 
S. Paul required, I trust we lack nothing. And certainly 
he that receives the Holy Ghost, to the end that he may be a 
faithful dispenser of God’s holy Sacraments, receives all that 
power touching the true Body of Christ, whereof a Priest 
can be capable, that is, in the former Catholic sense, (for I 
must always put you in mind of that, because they take 
advantage of general words,) to make a consecration, obla- 
tion, and distribution of it; all which are comprehended 
under the name of dispensers. (For, as concerning their pre- 
tended power of really sacrificing the true Body of Christ for 
the quick and the dead, there was never yet Priest that had 
it, but Himself, nor shall ever have it to the world’s end.) 
S. Paul requires no more. And, that the Church of England 
by the word “ dispensing’ requires as much, (that they may 
not restrain it to distribution only,) I will produce him four 
several testimonies of her own public profession and autho- 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 281 


rity, whereby (and not.by private men’s writings) the mind 
of the Church of England is ever best to be understood. 
1. One out of the same form of ordaining Priests, in the 
Bishop’s interrogation : “ Will you give your faithful diligence 
always so to administer (that is, dispense) the holy Sacraments, 
as Christ hath commanded, and as this realm hath received the 
same?” 2. Another in the canon of consecration, where the 
Priest professeth, that, “as God our heavenly Father did of 
His tender mercy give His only Son Jesus Christ to suffer 
death upon the Cross for our redemption, and as there He 
made (by His one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, 
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for 
the sins of the whole world, so He did also institute it, and 
in His holy Gospel command it, that a perpetual memory of 
His precious Death and Sacrifice should be continued until 
His coming again ;” which memorial, together with the con- 
secration, is there made by all the words and action that 
follow, all in a remembrance or commemoration of Christ’s 
Sacrifice upon the Cross. 3. A third, where in that canon 
also the Priest prayeth, that God would “ mercifully accept” 
this sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is, praise and thanks- 
giving, so that by those “merits and death of His Son,” (that is, 
of His Sacrifice there represented and commemorated,) “and 
through faith in His Blood,’ (which was poured out and 
offered up upon the cross,) “ both we and His whole Church 
may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of 
His passion : (which is to make it by application a propiti- 
atory sacrifice to us.) Besides, the Priest there presenteth 
to Almighty God (that which S. Austin” saith is the proper 
sacrifice of the Church in this action) ‘‘ ourselves, our souls 
and our bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice 
unte Him; humbly beseeching Him,” (as they do in the 
canon of the Roman Church, though there most an end they 
have no communicants when they do so,) “ that all those 
which be partakers of this holy Communion,” (that is, par- 
takers of the eucharistical sacrifice,) “may be fulfilled with 
His grace and heavenly benediction: “ acknowledging also 
our unworthiness, through our manifold sins, to offer unto 


» [S. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. x. c. 6. col. 243, F. Conf. ibid., c. 19, 20, col. 
—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1689, tom. vii. 255, 256.] 


282 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


Him any sacrifice, yet beseeching Him to accept that our 
bounden duty, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our 
offences.” 4. Then, fourthly, in the Catechism, where the 
Church of England clearly professeth, that this Sacrament 
was ordained “ for the continual memorial of the Sacrifice of 
Christ”? upon the Cross. All this in the “dispensing” of 
the holy Sacrament: and all this I trust will amount to the 
power of offermg sacrifice, that is, such a sacrifice as Christ 
and His Catholic Church hath taught us to make; though 
no such proper and real Sacrifice of Christ’s Body, as some 
doctors among them imagined. As for our power and words 
of consecration, they are the same that they have, be they 
what they will: for they are not yet agreed by what special 
words it is done. So here is a power touching the true 
Body of Christ. 
IV. Of the Real Presence of Christ’s Body in the Sacra- 
F. P.—Whetherit was because Ment of the Altar, and of the doctrine of 
they did not believe any such transubstantiation. 
rapes we ee ae ΕΣ It was well said here, ‘such power: for 
they did not admit of the Real sych a power of sacrificing as F. P. would 
Presence of our Saviour’s Body : ; : 
in the Sacrament of the Altar; teach us we do not believe; and, if we did, 
(since from the admission of that we should not be good Catholics. But, for 


doctrine would follow all that, 
which to avoid as superfluous, the Real Presence of our Saviour’s Body 


choy Pond i eee in the Sacrament, we believe it firmly. 
stantiation. ) We teach all our people, that “ the Body 
and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received 
by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” In our Articles for 
the Clergy we profess, that “the bread which we break is the 
partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of 
blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ,” and that 
“the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Lord’s 
Supper.” In our words of consecration we pronounce, that 
“thisis His Body.” In our words of distribution we say, that 
it is “the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for 
thee.” We believe He is there really, substantially, and truly, 
after an incomprehensible way of being, and not after a 
corporal or bodily manner of existence: we profess we know 
not how to explicate the manner, and therefore we admit not 
the manner of transubstantiation, which they would now 
obtrude upon us as a matter of no less faith, than that Christ 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 283 


was the Son of the living God, and incarnate of the Blessed 
Virgin. We know well, (and so do they too,) that Christ 
said, “ This is My Body,”—not, that after this manner it was 
His Body :—we believe verily that it is so. But, that it is 
after this manner so, (that is to say, by annihilating and 
transubstantiating the bread into His Body,) or after any 
other manner, whether in, or with, or under the bread, we 
are not tied to believe at all. If we let the schools dispute 
it, (and it were far better they disputed it less,) we do not 
hold all their conclusions for articles of our faith, nor what 
either Innocent the Third, (who was the first author of the 
name and doctrine twelve hundred years after the Apostles,) 
or Pope Pius the Fourth, (who first imposed it upon the 
Church of Rome as an article of their creed more than 
fifteen hundred years after Christ,) have been pleased out of 
their plenary authority to command. That, which Durand¢ 
was wont to say, is no way displeasing to us: “ Verbum audi- 
mus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, presentiam credimus :” 
“we hear the word, we feel the effect, we know not the manner, 
we believe the presence.” We believe, I say, the Real Pre- 
sence no less than they do: of the manner how, we dare not 
(as they do) so rashly define that, which we can never un- 
derstand. Nor indeed are we curious to enquire into the 
manner, (it being an incomprehensible, great mystery, hidden 
from us,) no more than to enquire into‘the mystery of Bap- 
tism, how the Blood of Christ there washeth away our sins, 
no more than to enquire into the mystery of Christ’s Incar- 
nation, how the Divine and human nature are united together 
-inone Person. We hold it a mystery, (and truly the Eucharist [Gen. xii. 
is a great mystery,) a Sacrament and a Sacrifice, of which “that 10} 
which remains is to be consumed with fire,” (as the ancient 
fathers‘ eloquently express themselves,) “that is, to be adored 
with faith, and not to be discussed with reason.” Whereas 
they, taking upon them to declare and unfold the manner, 
do therein destroy the nature of a mystery, whose nature it 
is not to be declared, or the manner of it unfolded to us. 


¢ [See Neand. Synops. Chron., p. a [ Compare Bp. Andrewes, ubi supra, 
203, as cited by Bp. Andrewes, Resp. from whom a great part of this section, 
ad Apol. Card. Bell., c. i. p.11, quoted 50 far as relates to transubstantiation, 
by Cosin, Hist. Trans., cap. ii. ὃ 5, is borrowed. 7 
supr. p. 23. ] 


984. CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


Whereof neither word nor thing was ever heard of in the 
ancient fathers*. From the doctrine therefore of the Real Pre- 
sence, which the Church of England admits, follows not the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, which she justly rejects, as being 
founded neither upon Scripture nor antiquity, but repugnant 
to them both, and destructive of the nature of a Sacrament, 
having also given occasion to many superstitions which we 
could recount. For it is true, which your own Priests and 
Jesuits have acknowledged in their published writings among 
us, that neither the word of transubstantiation nor the thing 
intended by it, was ever heard of in the ancient fathers. 

If this came in earnest from him, I am sorry to see him so 
transported without cause,—more sorry that 
his fit, as he says, should be so extreme as 
to make him speak and write he knows 
not what. In the mean while, thanks be 
to God, we believe, maintain, and enjoy 
ape Christ’s sacramental Presence more purely 

than they do. We never withdrew ourselves from the obe- 
dience of His Church, and were never more in blindness 
than when we were (for a time) obedient to them, in many 
things that were contrary to the Word of God, the rules and 
canons of the Catholic Church, and the laws and statutes of 
our own kingdom. 

V. Suggestions to quit the Church of England. 

Of the pretended defect or omission I said enough before. 


F. P.—Or that in His provi- 
dence it pleased God to deprive 
them of His sacramental Pre- 
sence, who had withdrawn them- 
selves from the obedience of His 
Church, and for that end gave 
them over to blindness of heart, 


F. P.—But so it is, that they 
omitted it. But, lest those of 
the Church of England who be- 
lieve our Saviour left that power 
of consecrating and really offer- 
ing His Body, &c., and distri- 
buting them to the faithful under 
the form of bread and wine, might 
be induced to join in communion 
with the Church of Rome, where 
undoubtedly that power is resi- 
dent, and from which to the 


But, that there be any such in the Church 
of England, (unless they be in it, and are 
not of it,) who believe our Saviour hath left 
to His Priests any such power of real sacri- 
ficing His Body, &c., I am sure Dr. C. be- 
lieves not; nor that there is any such 
power (which Christ never gave them) re- 
sident in the Church of Rome, nor that 


€ Discursus Modestus Jesuit. Angl., 
p. 13; et Wats. Quodl., 1. ii. art. 4. 
p- 31. [See Hist. Trans., cap. vi. ὃ. 17, 
note f. at p. 112 of this vol.—The 
admission was extended to the subject 
in dispute, viz., Ordination :—“ That a 
Priest is made by traditions of the 
chalice, paten, and host, into his 


hands, they (the Jesuits) say it is but 
a toy. They hold that the ancient 
fathers rem transubstantiationis ne atti- 
gerunt. These words are set down in 
the Discoverie, pag. 13, Quodlibet. ii. 
art. 4, p. 31.’”,-—See ‘ The Anatomie of 
Popish Tyrannie,’ by Tho. Bell, book 
1, preamble 4, 8vo. Lond. 1603, p. 3.] 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 


any such power is pretended by the Church 
of England, nor that any power there 
must of necessity be derived from the 
Church of Rome, or that for want of this 
pretended power they that live in com- 
munion with the Church of England are 
deprived of the greatest testimony of our 
Lord’s love :—I am well assured likewise 
that he believes none of all these: trusting 
well by the grace of God, that none will be 


285 


Church of England (if such power 
be pretended by it) it must of ne- 
cessity be derived, and to quit 
the Church of England, where, 
indeed, being no such power, they 
are deprived of the greatest of the 
testimonies of the love of our 
Lord, Dr. C. pretends that this 
power over the true Body of our 
Lord is really in their ministers, 
and that it is given them by the 
imposition of hands, and these 
words, “ Receive the Holy Ghost: 
whose sins,’’ &c. 


induced by these undue suggestions either to quit the Church 
of England, or to join in communion with the Church of 
Rome in these new fancies. And therefore, when F. P. says 
that Dr. C. pretends this power (the power of real sacrificing 
Christ’s Body) to be really in our Priests, or ministers, (as he 
calls them,) and that it is given them by imposition of hands, 
&c., this being written without all truth or probability, it 
gives us over just cause to stand in some doubt, that he 
makes but little conscience how he useth his pen. And 
more shall not need to be said to him for answer of that 


paragraph. 


VI. By what words Holy Orders are conferred, and whether 


a Priest be ordered at two several times. 


In the next paragraph, where he acknowledgeth that holy 


orders are given by thosé words, “ Receive 
the Holy Ghost: whose sins,” &c., (which 
I said were the very operative words for 
the conferring of orders,) I will be bold to 
take him at his word. And then I shall 
not need to prove either the conferring of 
a power to sacrifice Christ’s Body, which 
(in his sense) I must disclaim, and never 
undertook to do, or the power of consecrat- 
ing and offering in the ancient sense of the 


F, P.—All Catholics will ad- 
mit, that by those words, ‘‘ Re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost: whose 
sins,’’ &c., holy order, or the 
power of order, is given, &c.; and 
therefore I admit with the com- 
mon opinion, that by those words 
holy orders are given, &c. But 
it is not sufficient, &c., that holy 
orders are given by these words, 
unless the Doctor can make it 
appear, that the power of conse- 
erating and offering the Body of 
our Lord begiven by them. This 
he undertook to prove, &e. 


Church, which I have proved already, or any other power of 
priesthood whatsoever. For, if holy orders be then given, of 
necessity will it follow, that those persons to whom they are 
given must be then made Priests; and, if they be made 
Priests, it is all that in this matter we look for, and as much 
as he can ask: unless he will have them made half-priests, 


286 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


(that is, half at one time, and half at another, which were a 
strange kind of ordering ;) or unless he will have them twice 
made Priests, and, when they be once ordered, to be ordered 
over again; and, if that be their custom, let them hear their 
doom in the canons of the Apostles: ‘ δὲ quis Episcopus aut 
Presbyter ἵ,᾽ &c., “If any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon,” (they had 
no more orders then,) “shall by any man be twice ordered, as 
well he that gave, as he that received such double orders, 
ΠΤ eae shall be both deposed.” And therefore 
hold, that the whole power was some schoolmen, to avoid the rock of re- 
eee ve Aposties τὰ dhe la ordination, and giving of orders by halves, 
after the resurrection did only (whereupon F. P. is not afraid to run, and 
explicate a part of that power, ; : : ἢ 
which they had received before: Split himself into two pieces,) chose rather 
fo ot aes probable, to hold, that the whole power of orders was 
given to the Apostles at once in the last Sup- 
per. But itis a singular new opinion—that, and they were the 
first of all the world that held it.. They might have saved 
themselves as well, (and better,) if they had kept them to the 
opinion and doctrine of former times, that the whole power 
was given by Christ after His resurrection. And so might 
F. P. too, with less improbability by far, than to hold, as he 
does, that the Apostles had one half of their priesthood given 
them at the last Supper, and the other half when Christ was 
risen. The Bishops of the Roman Church are not so long 
about it; nor do I believe that they give any orders at all, till 
they come to impose hands upon the Priest, and say, “ Re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost.” If his opinion be otherwise, that 
Holy Orders are given by the first ceremony of delivering a 
chalice, &c., and Holy Orders again by the second ceremony 
of imposing hands, &c., let him look back upon the canon of 
the Apostles, and see how he likes it. 
VII. Of the words of our Saviour at His last Supper, ‘ Hoc 
facite,” &e., “Do this in remembrance of Me.” 
F. P.—The Doctor says, that Indeed true it is, the Doctor said that 
orders are not given by these Holy Orders of Priests were not conferred 


words. From hence it follows, Jo live 
that he esteems the power of con- by these words ; and from hence let it in 


τ Can. 68.—Si quis Ep., Pr., aut Dia- πος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, δευτέραν 


conus, secundam ab aliquo ordinatio- χειροτονίαν δέξεται παρά τινος, καθαι- 
nem susceperit, deponatur tam ipse, ρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς, καὶ 6 χειροτονήσαΞ, 
quam qui ordinavit. [See can. lxvii— κιτ.λ.]} 


Labbe, tom. i. col. 40.—e? τις ἐπίσκο- 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 


the name of God follow (for so he would 
have it) that he holds no such power of 
offering (that is, of real sacrificing) the 
Body of our Lord, as F. P. doth, to be- 
long to Holy Orders: yet from hence it 
will not follow, but that he holds a power 
in the Priests (as the ancient Catholic 


secrating and offering the Body 
of our Lord not to belong to holy 
orders. For all, whom hitherto 
I have read, do hold that our 
blessed Saviour gave power to 
His Apostles to do that which 
He had done in His last Supper, 
by those words, “ Do this,’’ &c., 
whatsoever their belief was of 
that which was done in it. 


fathers did) to consecrate and offer the Body of Christ (that 
is, to present it in a memorial sacrifice) to God the Father, 
and to distribute or divide that His true Body sacramentally 
unto others, who are thereby made members of His mystical 
Body; and all this by virtue of a commission, which (after 
the example of our Saviour) is given them for that purpose, 
when in the Name of the Blessed Trinity the Bishop lays 
his hands upon them, and confers upon them the order of 
priesthood with these words, “ Receive the Holy Ghost,” 
and those that follow: which commission I trow neither 
layman nor woman ever had, unless it be 


my Lady Abbess® that hath the power of 
spiritual jurisdiction given her, whereby 
she is enabled to excommunicate her sub- 
jects, (more than ever Queen Elizabeth 


F. P.—It follows by his doc- 
trine, that, if holy orders were not 
given by the words of the last 
Supper, any layman or woman 
hath power to do the same, as 
much as he; which though I hold 


had, or King James either,) which power 
though he must not mislike, yet by his leave I do. 

But for the words of our Saviour at His last Supper, “ Do 
this,” &c., they were only ‘verba preceptiva, non ordinativa,’ 
that is, words of command, and not words of conferring orders ; 


to be true, he does not. 


or, as Maldonate ! the Jesuit said, “ words of communion, and ! [See 


not words of ordination.” They concerned the institution of the 
- Eucharist only, and not the institution of priesthood ; though 
they might have relation as well to the duty of that office, 
(which was afterwards to be given by a special solemn act 
and commission for that purpose,) as to the duty of every one 


s Steph. d’ Alvin, de Abbat. potest. 
c. iii. [8] 11. [See Tractat. de Potestate 
Episcoporum, Abbatum, aliorumque 
Prelatorum, presertim Regularium, 
necnon Abbatissarum, W&c., auctore Ste- 
phano @’ Alvin, Ord. Min., &c., ed. 8vo. 
Par. 1607. fol. 15. B.—Quis vero du- 
bitat, aut denegat, hujusmodi laicos su- 
periores habere tum jurisdictionem ec - 


clesiasticam, spiritualem et tempora- 
lem, eamque talem, ut possint etiam 
absolutionem certorum casuum occur- 
rentium certis reservare sibi subditis 
sacerdotibus ; et contumaces excom- 
municare, et ab excommunicatione ab- 
solvere etiam per seipsos ; cum excom- 
municatio directe ad clavem presertim 
ordinis non pertineat, &c. } 


above, 
p- 263. ] 


288 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


besides that was afterwards to communicate of that Sacra- 
ment. For Christ’s precept had reference to them both, and 
not (as Εἰ, P. imagines) to the Apostles only, or to a sacri- 
ficing Priest alone. And could our Saviour appoint and 
command His disciples to do nothing, that for the time to 
come might concern the office of priesthood, but presently 
by that very command he must confer the order of priest- 
S. Matt. x. hood upon them. He sent them forth before this, and com- 
manded them to preach the Gospel. Did that command make 
them Priests? or had it not a clear reference to a future time, 
when they should be delivered up to councils, and brought 
before governors and kings for His Name’s sake; which was 
not fulfilled till He was risen from the dead. After this He 
gave them in charge to preach the Gospel, to baptize all 
nations, and to feed His sheep. Did that charge and com- 
mand confer upon them the order of priesthood every time 
He gave it? If every command that relates to their office 
(as this did at the last Supper) shall give them the power of 
order, we shall have ordination upon ordination, three or four 
upon the neck of one another, and all at several times. He 
had best, therefore, pitch upon one solemn act and time for 
all: for Orders can be but once given. 
VIII. Of the words of our Saviour after His resurrection, 
“Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye do forgive,” &c. 
And that was the time, when, by a solemn act, our Lord 


gave His disciples their commission, and 
F. P.—He says, that holy or- 


ders are given by these words, 
and by no other. He likewise 
saith, that, if they of the Church 
of Rome had not in their ordina- 
tion retained those words, ‘‘ Re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost: whose 
sins,’ &c., it might have been 
doubtful, for all their ‘ Accipe po- 
testatem sacrificandi pro vivis et 
mortuis,’ whether they had any 
Priests, or no. 

F. P.—But, if the Doctor had 
been pleased to use more of his 
logic, &c. 


their power of order, to which in all His pre- 
cepts concerning the several acts and offices 
of their function and ministry, (whereof 
that in the last Supper was one,) He had be- 
fore designed them. I must here prove 
what I say, (for I cannot forget that He 
calls upon me for logic,) that by these 
words the Apostles had theirs, and we have 
our orders, and that, but for these words, 
it might be doubtful whether they of the 


Church of Rome have any orders at all, (which will both be 
done in one:) and therefore I will give him these reasons 


for it. 


1. If the Apostles had not the power of order given them 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 289 


by virtue of ‘ Hoc facite, &c., at the last Supper, then will it 
follow, by his own confession, that they had it by these words 
after the resurrection, and by no other; for there is not a 
third time assigned by him or by any body else for that pur- 
pose. And, that they had it not by ‘ Hoe facite,’ or that these 
words, ‘“ Do this in remembrance of Me,” were no peculiar 
words of ordination, the reference that this precept had to 
all other communicants besides, (as 5. Paul expressly declares 
it,) will sufficiently evince. For words of ordination must be 
peculiar words, applicable to none, and operative upon none, 
but those that are ordained by them. These were not so; 
and therefore are they no words of ordination: and, if they 
were none to them, they can be none to us, nor to them of 
the Roman Church neither. 

2. Christ at His last Supper used no external rite of or- 
dination, without which Orders were never given. For the 
Sacrament of His Body and Blood, which He gave them, 
belonged to the Eucharist; and therefore He gave (there) 
no ordination at all: but gave it after His resurrection, at 
what time (and no other) He used a solemn external rite 
for that purpose, which by the Apostles was changed into 
imposition of hands, and hath been used by the Church 
ever since. 

8. If ‘Hoc facite, &c., be not ‘ Hoc transubstantiate et 
realiter sacrificate tam pro vivis quam pro mortuis,’ that is, 
if these words at the Supper, “ Do this in remembrance of 
Me,” be not the same with these words in the Pontifical, or 
in F. P.’s writing at least, ‘Transubstantiate and sacrifice this 
Body really for the quick and the dead, as you have seen Me 
do now before you,’—then was there none of F. P.’s power of 
order given by them, and, if none of that, none at all: for this 
is all he asks, and all he seeks for from them. But I have 
proved before, that Christ at His Supper did not sacrifice 
Himself, and therefore could not, by bidding them do as He 
did, order them to do that which He did not. I add now, 
to make the case yet more clear, that Christ, before His 
death, had not made His soul an offering for sin, because He 
had not shed His Blood for the remission of sins, which is 
the undivided and immediate effect of His death and passion, 
that was to follow this His last Supper, as is evident by the 


cOsIN. : U 


290 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


very canon" of the mass, “ Hoc est caliv Sanguinis Mei novi et 
aterm Testamenti,” &c., “qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur 
in remissionem peccatorum.” “ This is the cup of My Blood of 
the new and everlasting Testament, which shall be shed for 
you and for many for the remission of sins ;” that is, not 
which you have seen Me offer up already in the Supper, but 
which shall be offered for you and for all the world upon the 
Cross. No real sacrifice, then, here at the institution of the 
Sacrament, and therefore no such power of order given there 
as he pretends to, which is as good with him (for now I argue 
ad hominem) as none at all. 

4. Then, if not by these words, it will follow that by the 
other words, “ Recipe Spiritum Sanctum,” &c., (and by no 
other,) was all the power of order given, [which] the Apo- 
stles had and have, and that either we or they of the Church 
of Rome have had ever since. For there are no other words 
left for us now, but these. And there have we a breath or 
grace of the Spirit given us, which goes into and runs 
through every act of our office and ministry, consecration, 
and oblation, and all. For by the power of God’s Holy 
Spirit conferred upon us in holy orders is all done, that 
belongs to us to do. 

5. I urge that place of Scripture (Acts xx. 28) where 
S. Paul saith to the Bishops and Priests at Ephesus, “ Spiritus 
Sanctus vos posuit,” that “the Holy Ghost had put them into 
their office:” which ‘ putting into office’ by Him will be found 
no where but here. And well might the disciples, both by 
those words that Christ spake to them at the last Supper, and 
by divers other before that time, have jus ad rem, a right 
and an office designed for them: but jus in re, missio in pos- 
sessionem, that is, their investiture into that right, their livery 
and seizin given them, they had not till now; nor were their 
acts to be made public and authentical, (as the acts of Priests 
ought to be,) till Christ had given them by His Spirit their 
commission and their mito vos along with them. 

6. And then, sixthly, that he may have one reason 
(besides what I gave him before) for the giving of these 
orders here with the power of remitting sins, in the institu- 
tion of the holy Sacraments there is a power mentioned of 

[See Can. Missze, ap. Missale Romanum, ed. Par. 1605, p. 144.] 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 291 


the remission of sins: in Baptism, “ Be baptized every one Acts ii. 38. 

of you for the remission of sins ;” and, “ I believe one Baptism The Catho- 

for the remission of sins :” and in the Eucharist, “ This is My x be 

Blood of the New Testament for the remission of sins.” And, xxvi. 28. 

if the Sacraments were ordained for the remission of sins, 

certainly the power to dispense those Sacraments, (which dis- 

pensing, as I said, is to do all that pertains to them, to the 

Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ upon the Cross, and 

all there commemorated,) and the power to remit sins, go 

very naturally together, and are one included within another: 

though the Church of England, for a greater explication of 

that power, hath added in her public form of ordination :— 

“And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and 

of His holy Sacraments, in the Name of the Father,” &c. 

7. Lastly, I prove it by his own sayings: 1. That Orders 

are given by these words, € Receive RCT Be ὄξει ane 

Holy Ghost,” &c. For, if this be, I tell common opinion, that by these 

him once again, that they cannot be given wee tes iad uot] had that 

twice: therefore by these words, and by _ special [partial? | form of “whose 

no other. 2. That, if the Church of Rome  fhatiney could nat have had pow. 

had omitted this form, (which he calls 39°F eee eer a hie τ 

partial, but S. Jerome, as he shall see 

by and bye‘, calls complete,) it might be 

doubted that they would not have had power over the mys- 

tical Body to forgive sins, &c., that is, (by his own former 

confession,) would not have had holy orders. 38. That the 

benefit (or power) of remission of sins came from the Sacri- 

fice of Christ’s Body and Blood made upon the Cross, and 
that we cannot name the one, but we must of necessity in- 

clude and have relation to the other. And, if that be true, 

there is no need of any other words, either to consecrate the 

Sacrament, or to commemorate the Sacrifice. 4. That, as 

S. Jerome said, upon the day of the resurrection, by those 

words, “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins,” &c., the 

Apostles received the grace of the Holy Ghost to remit sins, 

to baptize, and to make men the sons of God, &e.; and that 

all this is granted. Put all these together, and habemus 

confitentem reum, and what need we any more witnesses? 

Yet more there are, which I shall produce hereafter. 

[See p. 293.] 
U2 


true. 
4, All this is granted. 











292 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


IX. Of the Holy Ghost’s descent at Pentecost. 
This paragraph (with some other that are in his answer) 
F. P.—If the Doctor mean, may be put among his extravagants. It 
that by the gifts of the Holy : Ee - ay i 
Ghesk fapeeteinerce oily ae well for him he put an if to it: other- 
are poured, all that power by wise there is not any of his men, nor any 
him mentioned, and particularly : Seo 
that of disposing of theFleshand Of his women neither, (who shall chance 
Blood of our Lord, is conferred, ere to read him,) but will marvel what 
he must needs grant, that all they 2 
upon whom the Holy Ghost de- he meaut, to take such a leap for nothing 
scended at Pentecost, in so ample ἘΡΟΤΕΡΡ : 
Ὁ πάπαν ΤῸ ΤΕΉΠΟΣ Π8 τὲ from the Resurrection to Pentecost. There 
it, were made Priests, both men was at that feast one gift given among 
and women, &c. Ε Ξ = 
others, which was to speak wisely and to 
the purpose; whereof if he had been pleased to make use, 
we should not have been troubled with this observation and 
sense of that Scripture, whereunto the enthusiasts of former 
ages, and the anabaptists of ours, have wrested it. It was 
no part of the Holy Ghost’s meaning, nor the Doctor’s nei- 
ther, to give way to this phrensy: for all God’s Spirit is 
not the spirit of prophecy, nor every gift and grace of His 
Spirit the gift and grace of priesthood, which was not given 
at the Resurrection, as the tongues were at Pentecost, once 
for all, nor (as some other gifts are) to be made common to 
all Christians in general, but to be peculiar and proper to 
them that have the mito and the spiritual grace of that 
function given them, (as the Apostles had,) to the world’s 
end. 
X. Of the judgment of the ancient fathers, that by these 
words, “ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose 
F. P.—I do not find any of - 5, 9 : 
the fathers, that say, the Apo- SIDS, &e., holy orders were given. 
sties are made Priests by those = -T have cited him some fathers already, 
is and in the former paper have made it 
clear, that the ancient Church knew no other rite, and used 
no other form but this. I trust F. P., when he hath read 
eee é it, will have his senses and his judgment 
ee fs 
enh oe τοὶ more awakened than to say, that they were 
all in a dream. 
The Greek fathers had no other name for giving of Orders, 
F. P— We might an-well tute and making of Priests, but χειροτονία, lay 
= imposition of hands only, Ing on of hands, which was and ever hath 
r yords, iss +j h : Β : 
Be ΓΟΙῸ, 15 Βτιδιςίοηξ to the -᾿ nthe only rite of ordination, (not your 


ordering of Priests. 
paten and chalice,)—ever, I say, since the 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 293 


Apostles’ times *, since S. Paul (speaking of holy orders) said 
to Timothy, “ Lay hands hastily on no man,” and thought he 1 Tim.v.22. 
had said enough to be understood : to which ceremony, being 
instar elementi, there never wanted a word by [? but] ‘ Accipe 
Spiritum Sanctum,’ &c., or the grace and gift of the Holy 
Ghost, sufficient for the dispensing of any holy mysteries, and 
the execution of any holy act belonging to that function. For 
which purpose let him read S. Paul again: “The gift that is 2 Tim. i. 6. 
in thee by imposition of hands :”’ I trow that the gift, which 
was thus in Timothy, was not the gift of absolving only, but 
a gift, grace, and power, to do all the acts ~~ Ῥ. Τ grant that by those 
of his ministry, a power to consecrate, as Words was and is given a speed 
᾿: Ἵ power of forgiving sins, but not 

well as to absolve from sin. Then let him ihe power of consecrating, or 
read his own Roman Pontifical, where, ‘*#cins: Se 
when the Bishop layeth his hands upon the Priest, he saith, 
“ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins,” &c. And let him 
read his author Bellarmine', who says it expressly, and twice 
for failing, that the grace in ordination is ever annexed or 
tied to the laying [on] of hands, that is, that they both go 
together, and are never parted. This, then, supposed and 
proved as it is, I will give him the testimony of more fathers 
for us yet. They are cited to his hands by his own author. 

S. Jerome™, in Esaiam: “ Ordinatio non solum ad impre- 
cationem vocis, sed etiam ad impositionem impletur manuum:” 
that “ordination is fully given” (no partial form as F. P. 
said before) “at the imposition of hands joined with 
prayer.” 

S. Austin", lib. de Gest. cum Emerito, et alibi: “ Manus 
impositione ordinari” dicit “ sacerdotes ; quod idem [omnes] 
veteres passim docent :” says, that “ by imposition of hands 


k Acts xiv. 23. χειροτονοῦντε:.--- 
Ordinaverunt Presbyteros. Can. Apost. 
[See Canones Apostolorum, i., 1]. --- 
Labbe, tom. i. coll. 25, 26.--- Ἐπίσκο- 
mos χειροτονείσθω, Episcopus ordine- 
tur ; Πρεσβύτερος χειροτονείσθω, Pres- 
byter ordinetur ;—et passim. ] 

1 Bell. de Sacr. Ord., lib. i. ¢. ii. [§ 
Quod autem.—Bell. op., tom. iii. col. 
1662.]—Secundum Scripturas alliga- 
tur [alligata est] gratia manus impo- 
sitioni in ordinatione. . . . (Et,) cum 
igitur gratia sit alligata ordinationi per 
impositionem manuum... - 


m [See Comment. in Esai. lviii. 10. 
—S. Hier. op., ed. Vallars. Veron. 
1734, tom. iv. coll. 694, 695.—Conf. 
Bellarm. de Sacram. Ord., lib. i. cap. 
ix. ὃ Ambrosius.—Op., tom. iil. col. 
1677.) 

n [See S. Aug. lib. de gestis eum 
Emerito Donat., ὃ 11.—Op., ed. Ben. 
Par. 1689, tom. ix. col. 632.—Ceteri 
autem non aderant ordinationi ejus, 
quando ei manus imposita est.—The 
words, as they stand in the text, appear 
to be Bellarmine’s own; for which see 
lib. de Sacr. Ord. ubi supr.] 


294 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


Priests are ordained, as the ancient fathers teach in all parts 
of their writings.” 

And Simeon Metaphrastes°, (who, though he be no great 
author with us, yet with him peradventure he is, the rather 
because he is with Bellarmine :) who in the life of 5. John 
Chrysostom says, that, “when the Bishop of Antioch laid 
hands upon him, to create or make him a Priest, the Spirit 
of God came upon him,” &c. 

I add only S. Ambrose’, de dign. Sacerd., c. 5.—Quando 
“homo imponit manus, Deus largitur gratiam. Sacerdos im- 
pont supplicem dextram, sed Deus benedicit potenti dextra :” 
that, “when the Bishop and Priests impose their hands in 
ordination, God also adds the grace and power by His own 
almighty Hland.” For therefore was this rite ordained in 
giving of holy orders, that by zmposita et admota manus, by 
lifting up and laying on of hands, we might know that we are 
designed to this function, and be certified from whence the 
power and grace of it (always annexed to it) doth proceed. 

And this (with what I have said before of the mind and 
practice of the ancient Church) is enough and sufficient to 
shew to any reasonable man, that the fathers held and kept 
our form of ordination, and knew no other, acknowledging 
that what Priests they had were made and ordered by the 
like rite and form that we make ours, and had power of order 
given them thereby to perform all holy acts and dispense all 


F. P.—The power of sacrific- 
ing Christ’s Body transubstan- 
tiated for the quick and the dead, 
I cannot discern from the Doc- 
tor’s words, nor can the Doc- 
tor shew it. 


holy mysteries belonging to that office. 
For it is most unreasonable to frame such 
words (as F. P. does) of consecrating 
by transubstantiating and sacrificing (by 


a real offering) the Body and Blood of 


Christ for the quick and the dead, which the fathers never 
heard of, nor held to be requisite for the making of a Priest ; 


° [See Bellarm. ubi supra.—For the 
precise words, see Vit. S. John Chry- 
sost. a Sim. Metaphrast., ap. S. Joh. 
Chrys. op., ed. Par. 1588, tom. i. 
p- 61—Cum ad Aram vero sacram 
accessissent, et ipse quidem, ut fas 
exigit, caput pontifici submisisset, 
ipsi autem ejus manus fuissent im- 
posite, miraculum quoddam hie quo- 
que facit Deus, et ostendit eum qui 
initiabatur esse dignum, et ex Sua 
sententia illum dignatum fuisse sacer- 


dotio. Columba enim, et colore alba, 
et specie valde pulcra, templum supe- 
rius cireumyolans, illico descendit et 
insidet capiti ejus, qui ordinabatur. 
Supervacaneum esset omnino immo- 
rari in interpretandis iis que sunt 
manifesta. Cui enim non est mani- 
festum, hoc esse signum Sancti Spiri- 
tus ? | 

P [Opus spurium, ap. S. Ambr. op., 
ed. Ben. Par. 1690, tom. ii. Append. 
col. 363.—Item, Bellarm., ubi supr. | 








ΙΝ THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 295 


and then to bid us shew them out of their writings. He may 
look long enough before he will find any such thing there 
himself: but let him shew that the fathers say any such 
power so expressed belongs to the function of a Priest, and we 
will as soon shew that they say the same power is given by 
this form of words, “ Receive the Holy Ghost,” ἕο. He will 
never be able to shew the one; and, till he does so, it is a 
vain thing for him to cry out so often as he does, that we are 
not able to shew the other. We shew it not, because there 
is no need to shew it, because the fathers never required it, 
nor knew it; and it is a most unreasonable thing to ask it. 
XI. Of the fathers’ judgment cited in Bellarmine, and 
others, upon that place of 5. John xx. “ Whose sins,” &c. 
There were cited 8. Hilary, 8S. Jerome, S. Austin, and S. 
Anselm, (as confessed by Bellarm. 1. i. de 
P. R. c. 12.) to interpret these words in 
S. John, “ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose 
sins,” &c., a[s] conferring the power of or- 
der and jurisdiction: where F. P. imagines 


F. P.—I should be sorry to say 
that the Doctor did not under- 
stand what he readin Bellarmine, 
and that he had wilfully cor- 
rupted that which he had under- 
stood. But, saying that the 
fathers there do interpret that 


himself got into a triumphing chariot, and 
drives away with it somewhat too furiously. 
But I shall be bold to stop him in his ca- 
reer, and to take him down from his tri- 
umph besides. For do not those fathers 
(and more besides them that are here 
cited) expressly say, that those words and 


place of John xx. of order and 
jurisdiction, whereas they only 
speak of that place of Matt. xviii. 
‘* Whatsoever you shall loose on 
earth,’’ &c., which place is nothing 
to the Doctor’s purpose, I leave 
it to your Ladyship’s judgment, 
whether he minded well either 
what he read, or what he said, or 
no. And certainly it was a gross 
mistake. 


promise in S. Matth. xviii. were performed 
in 8. John xx., and not before? And doth not Card. Bel- 
larmine4 confess in plain terms, that those fathers under- 
stood the place both of the power of order and the power of 
jurisdiction? I will make it apparent, to any that can but 
read their words, that it is both so and so. 

For the fathers first. 8. Anselm’, upon the place of S. 
Matthew : “Notandum est, quod hec potestas clavium non solum 
Petro data est: sed, sicut Petrus unus pro omnibus respondit, 
sic in Petro omnibus hance potestatem dedit, cum dictum est 
post passionem, Quorum remiseritis peccata,’ &c.; that 15, 
“note, that this power of the keys was not given to S. Peter 
only: but, as he made the answer, one for all, so in him 


4 [See below, p. 298. ] 
τ S. Anselm, in Matth. [cap. xvi.—Op., ed. Col. Agr. 1612, p. 74.] 


“296 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


Christ gave the power to them all, when He said to them 
after His passion, ‘ Whose sins you do remit,’ ” &c.; and that 
was in the twentieth of S. John, and no where else. 

S. Theophylacts likewise upon that place: ‘‘ Omnibus Apo- 
stolis concesse sunt claves. Quando? Cum dizxit, ‘ Quorum- 
cunque peccata remiseritis, &c. Etenim cum dixit, ‘Dabo,’ futu- 
rum tempus signat, hoc est, post Resurrectionem ;” that is, “the 
power of the keys was given to all the Apostles. And when 
were they given? When Christ said, “ Whose sins ye re- 
mit,” &c.: for, when He said, ‘‘I will give,’ He noted the 
time to come, that is, after the Resurrection.” 

Origent also upon the place: “An soli Petro dicitur a 
Christo, Tibi dabo claves? Sed apud Johannem, dans Spi- 
ritum Sanctum, Jesus discipulis suis dicit : ‘ Accipite Spiritum 
Sanctum, ” &c., that is, “ But did Christ say to 8. Peter only, 
“41 will give thee the keys?” Yea, in 8. John He gave them 
to the Disciples, when He gave them the Spirit, saying, 
* Receive the Holy Ghost,’ ” &e. 

S. Cyprian, de Unit. Eccl.", speaking of the same place in 
S. Matth., refers it likewise to S. John: “ Apostolis omnibus 
post Resurrectionem equalem' potestatem tribuit” (Christus.) 

. “ Hoc erant utique ceteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari 
consortio prediti et honoris et potestatis :” that is, “ Christ after 
His Resurrection” (that was in the twentieth of S. John) 
“gave equal power to all His Apostles: for they were all en- 
dued with the like honour and power that S. Peter was.” 

S. Jerome against Jovinian*: “ At dices, super Petrum 
fundatur Ecclesia,’ &c., “licet id ipsum in alio loco super 
omnes Apostoles fiat, et cuncti claves ... accipiant ?’ “ But you 
will say, that the Church was founded upon S. Peter,” (that 
was the place of S. Matthew,) “ yet was the very same thing 
done in another place” (that was in the twentieth of 8. John) 
*‘ upon all the Apostles, who all received the keys.” 


s S. Theoph. in Matth. [cap. xvii— ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ai κλεῖδες, «7.0... . ἐν 
Op., ed. Lut. Par. 1631. p. 94.—ei yap δὲ τῷ κατὰ Ἰωάννην δοὺς Πνεῦμα Αγιον 
καὶ πρὸς Πέτρον μόνον εἴρηται τὸ, δώσω ὃ Σωτὴρ τοῖς μαθηταῖς, k.7.A. | 
σοὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοὶς ἀποστόλοις δέ- a S. Cypr. de unit. Eccl. [8 Hoc eo. 
dora. πότε; ὅτε εἶπεν, ἂν τινῶν ἀφῆτε —Op., ed. Oxon. 1682, p. 107.]—Et 
τὰς ἀμαρτίας, ἀφίενται, καὶ γὰρ τὸ, δώσω, Ep. 73. The words acknowledged, re- 
μελλόντα χρόνον σημαίνει, τουτέστι, peated afterwards by F. P. himself to 


τὸν μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν. this sense. 
τ Origen, Tract, i. in Matth. [See ΧΟ §. Jeronym., 1. i. contra Jovin. [§ 
Comm. in S. Matth., tom. xii. ὃ 11.— 26.—S. Hier., op., ed. Vallars., Verone 


Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1740, tom. iii. p.524, 1788, tom. ii. col. 279. ] 
525.—Gpa δὲ τῷ Πέτρῳ μόνῳ ΣΟΥ αι 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 297 


S. Austin’,—I have him not by me, (nor S. Hilary7;) but 
the Pope* had (whose authority you will not distrust) when 
he said : “ Videndum est, que sint iste claves.” ....“ Has duas 
claves notat Angustinus” dari Jo. xx. “ Quorum peccata, ” &¢., 
that is, “ we are to look what these keys be,” (the keys men- 
tioned in S. Matthew,) “and S. Austin noteth these two 
keys,” (that is, of Order and Jurisdiction, for there be no 
other,) “ to be given in the twentieth of S. John, by these 
words, ‘ Whose sins,’ ” &c. 

I omit Hugo Cardinalis’, the Ordinary Gloss¢, Drachma- 
rus[?], Scotus®, as men of a later age, (though all, as you say, 
of your Church,) that might be produced to the very same 


purpose. 


And now, whether F. P. hath spoken altogether so con- 


y [See 5. Aug. de Doctr. Christ., 
lib. i. ὃ 17.—Op., tom. iii. par. i. col. 
10.—Sce also Serm. cexey., in Natali 
Apost. Petri et Paulii.,§ 2; tom. v. 
col. 1194.—Has enim claves non homo 
unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclesie.... 
Audite in alio loco quid Dominus dicat 
omnibus Apostolis Suis: ‘ Accipite 
Spiritum Sanctum,’ ἅτ. (Jo. xx. 22, 
23.).... Hoe ad claves pertinet, de 
quibus dictum est: ‘ Quz solveritis in 
terra,’ &c.—Conf. Serm. xcix. de verbis 
Evang. Luc. vii., c. 9, 10, col. 525; 
et Serm. cxlix. de verbis Act. x., c. 5, 
6, col. 706; et lib. de Adversar, Leg. 
et Proph. c. xvii. ὃ 36, tom. viii. col. 
567; et Tractat. exxi. ὃ 4, in S. Joh. 
Evang. xx., tom. 111, par. ii. col. 808 ; 
et passim. } 

2 [See S. Hil. Pictav., de Trinit. 
lib. vi. § 37.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1693, 
col. 904.—Hee fides regni ccelestis 
habet claves. Hec fides quz in terris 
solverit aut ligaverit, et ligata in ccelis 
sunt et soluta.... Qui(Petrus,) iterata 
a se dilectionis in Deum postulate pro- 
fessione, tentari se adhuc tanquam 
ambiguum et incertum tertia interro- 
gatione congemunit; per id quoque a 
Domino post tertiam tentationis perga- 
tionem infirmitatum, ‘ Pasce oves Meas’ 
ter meritus audire: (S. Joh. xxi. 27.) 
qui, in cunctorum Apostolorum silen- 
tio, &c. .. . Hine regno ccelorum habet 
claves ; hine terrena ejus judicia, judicia 
ccelestia sunt.—Et, Comm. in Matt., 
cap. xvi. § 7, col. 690, 691.—O in nun- 
cupatione novi nominis felix Eeclesiz 
fundamentum, dignaque edificatione 
illius petra, que infernas leges, et Tar- 


tari portas, et omnia mortis claustra 
dissolveret! O beatus cceli janitor, 
cujus terrestre judicium prajudicata 
auctoritas sit in ccelo; ut, que in ter- 
ris aut ligata sint aut soluta, statuit 
ejusdem conditionem obtineant et in 
ccelo.—See also Comm. in cap. xviii. ὃ 
8, col. 700.—Conf. Bellarm. de R. P., 
lib. i. ο. 12, §§ Alia, et Jam ad; tom. i. 
coll. 658, 661. ] 

a Hadrianus Sextus Papa, iniv. Sent., 
de Clavibus, [ὃ Secundo; ed. Rom. 
1522, fol. 146. ] 

5 [The precise wordsare: Has duas 
claves notat Aug., et post eum Glo. in- 
terlinearis, Jo. xx. Quorum remiscritis, 
i.(e.) quos dignos remissione judicave- 
ritis, duabus clavibus potestatis et dis- 
cretionis, remittuntur, &c. But there is 
no reference to 5. Hil. ] 

© In Matth. [cap. xvi. ὃ. Et tibi 
dabo claves, &c.—Hugonis Card. Pos- 
till., ed. Par. 1545, par. v. fol. 52, K.— 
Claves sunt potentia, et scientia dis- 
cernendi, qua dignos recipere et indig- 
nos excludere debet a regno. Et idem 
habetur Joannis xx., c. Quorum re- 
miseritis peccata, &c. Glossa duabus 
clavibus, scilicet discretionis et potes- 
tatis. Hz sunt significate per claves 
ostiariorum templi, qui immundos ab- 
jiciebant. | 

4 [See Glos. Ordinar. in S, Joh. xx., 
ap. Bibl. Sacr., ed. Antv. 1617, tom. v. 
col). 1315, 1316; et conf. Glos. Ord. in 
S. Matth. xvi., ibid. coll. 279, 280. } 

ὁ In iv. dist. 19. [See Joan. Duns 
Scot., Sent. lib. iv. dist. xix. q. 1; ed. 
Anty. 1620, tom. ii, p. 302, et seq. 
passim. | 





298 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


siderately or no, as he should have done, in saying that 
the fathers’ interpretation of this place in 5. Matthew was 
nothing to that of δ. John, in the name of God let the lady 

judge, or whom he will besides. 
Then for Bellarmine, these be his own words®: “ Est ergo 
‘ communis expositio Hilarii, Hieron., An- 

F. P.—But the other is worse, 3 6 

when he says, that the fathers Selmi, et aliorum, .... necnon Aug., tract. 
there cited are confessed by Bel- 92 et 49 in Johan., Dominum loqui de 


larmine to interpret the place : 9 
there treated of to be understood potestate clavium, Ss 0s 6 fat quam- 


eae es power oforder ie fic’? (Matthew xvi. 18.) “tractari 
videatur pracipue de potestate jurisdicti- 
onis ;”...... (et) “tamen Patres jam nominati locum hune de 
utraque potestate, ordinis videlicet et gurisdictionis, exponunt. 
Et certe videtur ex ipso textu id posse deduci;” &c. And § 
Dices® : “Dices, Si non sunt Apostolis date claves hoc loco” 
(Matthei,) “sed promisse tantum, quo tandem loco sunt date ? 
Respondeo datas esse Joh. xx. 22,” that is, “it is the common 
exposition thereof of S. Hilary, S. Jerome, δ. Anselm, 8S. Aus- 
tin upon John, and others, that Christ spake here in 5. Mat- 
thew of the power of the keys. And howsoever the words may 
seem chiefly to concern the power of jurisdiction, yet the 
fathers here cited understand this place of the power of 
order and jurisdiction both; and truly as much may be de- 
duced out of the text itself. But you will say, If the keys 
were not given, but promised only, to the Apostles in this 
place of S. Matthew, in what place then were they given? 
I answer that they were given in S. John xx. 22.” Certainly 
there was a gross mistake some where; and, if these be Bel- 
larmine’s words, (as his words most certainly they are,) the 
Dr. hopeth that F. P. will be pleased to take back the mis- 
take, and the grossness of it too, to himself. 
For did the Dr. say, that either the fathers, or Bellarmine, 
_ F. P.—For Bellarmine says or any man else, did ever understand the 
indeed, that the place is under- ἄς eee Gites 3 
stood by them of order and juris- power of order and jurisdiction to be given 
fheh. on by the wbee Gans, and conferred in 8. Matthew? Let him Ϊ 
lath.) then handled, either of look again, and, if his sight be good, that he 
ee τσ eee may be sure to read right, he will find that 


mised. And I ean less excuse 


this mistake by inadvertency, the Dr.’s words were (as im another place 
seeing that the Doctor had at 5 - 
first left out the word conferred, Ε΄. P. himself hath repeated them) neither 





Ε [See Bellarm. de Rom. Pont., lib. 1. col. 658.] 
i. cap. xii. §§ Alia, et Et quamvis, tom. h [ Bell. ubi supr., col. 661. ] 


ΙΝ THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 299 


more nor less than these: “S. Hilary, S. and afterwards interlined it. So 
there are two mistakes in thisone 


Jerome, 5. Augustine, &c., (as is confessed allegation. 
by Bellarmine, 1. i. de P. R. c. 12,) interpreting those words, 
‘Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins,’ &c. (that is, the 
words in S. John) say, that they are to be understood to 
confer both the power of order and jurisdiction.” Let him 
mark that they were conferred by the words in S. John. 
He did not say, conferred by the words in S. Matthew, 
but that the fathers and Bellarmine too interpreted the 
words in S. Matthew to be fulfilled and conferred in S. 
John, when Christ was as good as His promise and said, 
“Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins,” &c. The not dis- 
cerning of which plain and clear expression was truly a 
great inadvertency in Εἰ. P., and hath created us a great deal 
more trouble than needed in this matter. But I will be con- 
tent for once, that he numbers these his three mistakes and 
his four hasty censures among his ordinary and venial sins. 
XII. Of the place in S. Cyprian’s Ep. 73. 
I foresaw what would be said to 5. Cy- 
prian, and therefore have in the for- 
mer paper prevented this exception’, that, 
though this was his error, to plead as he did against here- 
tics’ baptism, yet that was none, for which I cited him to 
say/, that; by those words of Christ after His resurrection, 
“ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins,” &c., the Apostles 
aud Priests of the Church were “ Dominicd et Evangelicaé 
ordinatione fundati,” &c., that is, if we regard the force of 
his speech, that the ordination, which none but those that 
were first ordained [by] were to meddle with holy things that 
they had from Christ, was founded upon those words in His 
Gospel: that from them (for he cites no other) the Priests 
of the New Testament had what belonged to the right and 
power of their office; and that none, who had not this cer- 


F, P.—S. Cyprian pretends in 
this Epistle to prove, that baptism 
given by heretics is not valid: 
for the proving whereof, &c. 


1 [See above pp. 270, 271; and p._ .... Nec hoc sine Scripture auctoritate 


255, note 1.] 

i Et S. Cypr.—Post resurrectionem 
Christus ait discipulis suis, Accipite 
Spiritum Sanctum. Quorum peccata, 
Unde intelligimus non nisi 
prepositis et in evangelica ac dominica 
ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare, 
aut remissionem peccatorum dare, το. 


proponimus, ut dicamus certa et pro- 
pria ordinatione hec esse facienda, nec 
posse quenquam contra sacerdotes as- 
sumere ibi aliquid quod non sit sui 
juris ac potestatis. Nam Core, &c. 
{See Cypriani op., ed. Oxon. 1682, p. 
201. | 


300 


CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


tain and proper ordination, should usurp upon their right, 
as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, did upon Aaron the Priest’s 
office, in taking upon them to sacrifice, &e. 

Out of which words to infer that the ministers which be out 
of the Church, that is, the Priests in the 
Church of England, (for that I believe 
is his meaning, and not to defend S. Cy- 
prian’s error,) can neither baptize, ab- 
solve, nor offer sacrifice, will be a harder 
matter than he is aware of, and there- 
fore he shall do well to give it over. For they that cannot 
brook every novelty in the Church of Rome, (and the novel- 
ties of it only have we left,) are not pre- 
sently out of the Catholic Church of 
Christ, which hath a far larger extent 
than the particular degenerated Church and faith of Rome 
hath, or ever had. And let his two instances here go for two 

of her novelties among many other: the one 

called a real transubstantiating and sacri- 

ficing of the Body of Christ again for the 
~ quick and the dead, and the other such an 
adherence to the chair at Rome’, that whatsoever the Pope 
and his party shall be pleased to dictate to us, (though never 
so much against Scripture, and against the Faith and canons 
of the Catholic Church, we must upon pain of their™ damnation 
be bound to receive from them, like Gospel and the articles _ 
of our Creed. For whatever his words are, (as if he in- 
tended no more by them than Christ and 
old 5. Cyprian did by super hane petram,) 
yet we know well enough what his mean- 
ing is by 8. Peter’s (new) chair at Rome, where" somebody 


F. P.—Out of which words if 
the Doctor would infer, that the 
ministers (being out of the 
Church) can neither baptize, ab- 
solve, nor offer sacrifice, I can 
see how it might clearly be col- 
lected out of that place. 


F. P.—From the communion 
of whose chair your Ladyship is 
separated. 


F. P.—The power of sacrific- 
ing or consecrating the Body of 
our Lord, (understood in his 
fermer sense. ) 


F. P.—According to S. Cy- 
prian, the Church of Christ was 
by Him built upon S. Peter. 


1 Cone. Const. [See Hist. Cone., 
passim ; Labbe, tom. xii. col. 1, et seq. ] 
—Later. i. ii. [See Conc. Lateran. iv. 
capit. i. De Fide Cathol., capit. ii. De 
errore Abbatis Joachim, et capit. iii. 
De Hereticis ; Labbe, tom. xi. col. 142, 
144, 148.]—Et Conc. Trid. [ Labbe, 
tom. xiy. col. 725, et seq. |—Et Bulla 
Pii IV. [Ibid. col. 944. ] 

™ Bulla P. Pii. TV. super forma jura- 
menti professionis fidei : “* Extra quam 
nemo potest esse salvus,’’ [ Labbe, tom. 
xiv. col. 944, 946.] 


πα Greg. VIJ. in Cone. Rom. ann. 
1076. [ Labbe, tom. x. col]. 355—358. ] 
—Sigeb. ad ann. 1088. [See Auberti 
Mirzi Rerum toto orbe gestarum 
Chron., ed. Antvy. 1608, p. 165.j— 
Et ann. 1074. [ibid., p. 159.J— 
Alex. VI. [See Pauli Jovii Hist. sui 
temporis, lib. i—Op., ed. Basil. 1578, 
tom. i. p. 6, et seq. passim. |—Bulla 
Pii V. contra Reginam Angliez, &c. 
{See Bullarium Romanum, ed. Rome, 
1638, tom. ii. p.229. |—Joh. XXII. con- 
tra Lud. Imp. [See Ludovici IV. Imp. 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 301 


hath used of late to sit, that (if ye angered him) would let 

never a king in Christendom sit quiet in his throne, nor never 

a Bishop neither, which makes us suspect that 8. Peter’s 

chair is set aside, and another more majestical set up there 

in the room of it. To this new chair, Church, and faith, it 

is, that F. P. would recommend the lady, » p_aia ie Lourie 
of whose constancy in the true Catholic — ing to your Ladyship’s observa- 
Faith, and in the communion of the true Hons Sc. 

Catholic religion professed by the Church of England, not- 
withstanding all his or any other man’s suggestions to the 
contrary, by the grace of God, we are very confident. 

XIII. Of the place in S. Hierome, Epist. 150, ad Hedi- 
biam : 

Where S. Jerome saith, that, “upon the day of the Re- 
surrection, by these words, ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose 
sins you do forgive,’ &c., the Apostles (and so their succes- 
sors) received the grace of the Holy Ghost to remit sins, and 
to baptize, and to make men the sons of Pepi aneweres Ale thas as 
God,” &e. And F.P. saith, that all this 9*nte¢. 
is granted; that is, (say we,) all the question. For, if 
our Priests have power by these words to remit our sins, to 
administer the Sacraments, and to make us the sons of God, 
what need we more? As for the power of yp, p.—ButS. Jerome says not 
sacrificing the transubstantiated Body of werd of their receiving power of 

at : ἢ 5 consecrating or sacrificing the 
Christ (that being F. P.’s meaning) for Body of Christ: (ut supra.) 
the quick and dead, S. Jerome could not 
speak a word of it indeed, for he never knew or heard 
of it. 

XIV. The place in Panormitan. 

Panormitan, in whom we find that the delivery of the 
chalice and paten is not of the substance of ordaining 
Priests, stands yet good, and is very cer- 

: F. P.—I have not the book. 
tainly to the purpose ; both because Εἰ. P. But, admitting it, it makes no- 
undertook at first to maintain that cere- Se Tcdick eee ce 
mony (as all those persons that heard him _ those words, “ Receive the Holy 
speak will witness) to be so materially essen- Snot i eee 
tial and necessary, as that no such orders (thats, of really sacrificing the 


Bav. Ducis,contr. Joannis XXII. Pape  quardi Freheri, curante Struv., ed. Ar- 
bullam Respons., ap. Rerum Germani- _ gentorati, 1717, tom. i. Ρ. 655. |—Et 
carum Scriptores, &c.,ex biblioth. Mar- alii. 


302 


CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


Body of Christ, transubstantiated 


could be given without them, and because 
by consecration. ) 


the Dr. never undertook to prove more, 
than that this ceremony with the form annexed (of taking 
power to offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead) was not 
so substantial and necessary as F. P. made them. But, if 
Panormitan said the one was not held to be of the substance 
of orders, it will follow that the other was not held to 
be so neither: for that ceremony and that form of words 
ever go together, and are never parted, as appears by the 
pontifical, and by every writer besides that is of Ε΄, P.’s new 
opinion. 

XV. The place in Pope Innocent, and Cardinal Hos- 
tiensis. 

The saying of Pope Innocent also, and Card. Hostiensis, 
was to the purpose: (Panormitan” recites 
the opinion of Pope Innocent, and P. Ρ. 
of Venice® the opinion of Hostiensis, and 
Andreas? both:) who were so far from be- 
lieving and holding, as F. P. does, that the delivery of the 
paten and chalice, or that the words of giving authority to 
offer sacrifice for quick and dead, were essential and neces- 
sary, as that, had it not been for the canons of the Roman 
Church, they thought it would have been enough to make 
a Priest, for the Bishop only to have said, ‘Be thou a 
Priest,’ and no more. Nor was the place 
here brought by the Doctor to any other 
end, but to shew that in this matter nei- 
ther Pope nor Cardinal were of F. P.’s re- 
ligion. In the mean while, if they were 
of this mind, it does not presently follow, 
that the Dr. is of the same mind too, nor that any were ever 


F. P.—He doth not cite the 
places, nor do I find any such 
thing in the author named by 
him. 


1 (Padre 
Paolo.) 


F. P.—But, saying, ‘if other 
forms had not been afterwards 
brought into the Church by the 
canons,’ he seems to insinuate 
by the authority of those authors, 
that at first they were ordered by 
only saying, ‘ Be thou a Priest.’ 


So that 


F. P.—And Innocent the Pope, 
in Instr. Arm, Cone. FI., says, 
“ Receive the power of sacri- 
ficing,’’ &c., to be the form of 
making Priests. 


" [Panormitan., Comm. super secund. 
par. in prim. libr. Decretalium, De sa- 
cram. non iterand., cap. iii. Presb., ed. 
Lugd. 1586, tom. i. par. ii. [0], 51, B.— 
See above, p. 256, note n. } 

° [ Petr. Suay., Hist. Cone. Trid., lib. 


ordered by this form first or last. 
here (as in many places besides) F. P. for- 
got his own logic: and in his next words 
that follow he forgot somewhat else,—I 


vii. art. 6, ed. Aug. Trin. 1620, p.481.— 
See above, p. 256, note o. | 

P [See Joan, Andr. Comm. in prim. 
Decret., de Sacram. iterand. vel non, 
cap. 111. Presb,; ed. Venet. 1581, tom, 
i. fol. 173.] 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 303 


will not say, his sufficiency or his honesty. But let him 
make good what he cites, here in margin, (and I can the less 
excuse his inadvertency, because he says he had Innocent by 
him,) that ever Innocent the Pope either gave any such In- 
struction to the Armenians, or was ever at the council in Flo- 
rence, and said, that ‘ Receive the power of sacrificing,’ &c., 
was the form of making Priests, and he shall without any 
more ado carry the cause: I will give him leave once more 
to mount his chariot, and to triumph the second time. 

In the mean while, if he makes it not good, (as it is not 
possible he should, unless he can fetch Pope Innocent out 
of his grave 200 years after he was dead,) I hope he will be 
pleased to come down to us, who in this thing have Innocent 
the Pope altogether on our side: for these be his very words 
in his council of Lateran‘, concerning the Priest’s power 
of consecrating the Sacrament, that ‘‘no man hath power 
to do it, unless he be a Priest, who is rightly ordained 
according to the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ 
Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.” He gave 
them the keys by those words in S. John, “ Receive the Holy 
Ghost : whose sins,” &c., as hath been made clear before, and 
as neither Bellarmine, nor F. P., nor any body else will deny. 
Here then is a proof for him, (and out of 1 p__pacsim—T do not find 
such an authentic testimony, as he must not by any good testimony, that the 

Ae : τ Apostles or any other were made 
gainsay, the testimony of Pope Innocent, Priests by these words, or had 
and the council of Lateran,) that by the power by iieu) to vcunkecrate tie 

E esse acrament. 
power of the keys Priests have power, as 
well to consecrate the Sacrament, as to remit sins. For “4ε- 
cipe potestatem sacrificandi pro vivis et mortuis’ was not yet 
come in. 

XVI. The Canon of the fourth council of Carthage. 

The fifth canon of this council was produced’ to prove, 
that the delivery of the paten and the 5, p_y,amire that he should 
chalice, (which F. P. calls there a matter bring such proofs for a matter of 
of such importance,) was not necessary or “U¢! '™Portance. 
essential in the ordaining of Priests. 

It was a council worth the citing, this ; for it was celebrated 


4 Can. i. [Labbe, tom. xi. col. 143.] _ quas Ipse concessit Apostolis et eorum 
—Hoc sacramentum nemo potest con- _successoribus Jesus Christus. 
ficere, nisi sacerdos, [qui] fuerit rite τ [See above, pp. 257, 265.] 
ordinatus secundum claves Ecclesie, 


804. CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


no less than twelve hundred and nine years since, and by no 
fewer than two hundred and fourteen Bishops: nor must 
F. P. think to fillip it off so slightly as he does, or to out-face 
the authority of so many ancient Bishops and Fathers of the 
Church with casting up his eyes at it, and saying, he admires 
that such a proof should be brought against him. 

To prove that the tradition of the paten and chalice cum 
sud formd, (which he calls here a matter of such importance,) 
was not necessary or essential to the ordaining of Priests, the 
third canon of the council was produced, the title whereof is, 
‘Qualiter Presbyteri ordinentur, that is, ‘After what manner 
Priests are to be ordained:’ and the words of the canon 
itself are, “Presbyter cum ordinatur, E'piscopo eum benedicente, 
manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui pre- 
sentes sunt manus suas juxta manus Episcopi super caput illius 
teneant.” “When a Priest is ordained, the Bishop pronouncing 
the blessing over him, and laying hands upon his head, all 
the Priests that be present shall likewise lay their hands upon 
his head, next the hands of the Bishop.” Which is the same 
canon or rule that the Church of England useth, and hath 
put into our form of ordination at this day. So that, if the 
ancient Church in S. Austin’s time (the time of the council 
of Carthage) had any Priests, we shall not need to doubt of 
ours. For the proof is clear, that other ordination, than 
we have now, had they none then, neither by paten, nor 
by chalice, nor by any such matter and words of import- 
ance, as he would bear the world in hand withal to be so 
essential and necessary. ΤῸ elude the proof, therefore, 

brought from the authority of this canon, 

F, P.—In that council thereis he would make us believe, contrary to 
ΕΣ τος Be 2 Me Pee his own knowledge, (unless he cast up 

paten and chalice. nly ou 
it sets down the several forms of his eyes so high with admiring that he 
imposition of hands according to δ 3 : 5 eae 
several orders. could not see it,) that in this council there 
is no more mention of words, than of the 
paten and chalice, and that the fathers there did set down 
nothing else but the several forms only of imposition of 
hands according to several orders. For certaimly here was 
either a mistake, or somewhat that was worse. Let him 
leave off his admiring a while, and set his eyes down upon 
the canon: he will find, that, besides imposition of hands, 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 305 


there is a benediction of the Bishop, and another of the 
Priest, ‘uno super eum fundente benedictionem, and‘ Episcopo 
eum benedicente, and again, ‘Solus Episcopus qui eum benedi- 
cit;? which cannot be done without words, and is a several act 
set down there to be performed in every several order, besides 
his several imposition of hands. What words those were is 
not there expressed, (Ε΄. P. should have said so,) but words 
they were howsoever, and his word is not to be taken, when 
he says there was none, or no more mention of words than 
of paten and chalice. Had it been ‘tradente instrumenta, 
(and no particular instruments expressed,) as it is ‘fundente 
benedictionem,’ (and no particular words expressed,) indeed 
the cases might have been somewhat alike ; but here is ‘ de- 
nedictionem fundente, and ‘ benedicente Episcopo, and ‘ Epi- 
scopus benedicit, and never a word of paten or chalice at all : 
which makes F. P.’s ‘no more’ to be no less than a , 1m- 
posing upon the credulity, which he thought his cleanly con- 
veyance of those words away should have met withal: but 
now he is met withal himself. For that there were any 
words, or benediction at all, is enough to detect his over- 
sight ; and what those words were, that always went (and do 
still) with imposition of hands,-—his own Roman pontifical 
(which I hope he will not deny to have been the ancient and 
perpetual tradition of the Church) will be able to inform 
him, that they were no other, but “ Receive the Holy Ghost : 
whose sins you do forgive,” &c. 

To infer therefore, as the Dr. did, that imposition of hands 
only, without either chalice or paten, was 





here appointed, will be better logic by 
far, than to plead, as F. P. doth, that a 
man might as well from this canon infer 
that imposition of hands only without 
using any words would be sufficient for 


F. P.—For he might as well 
infer, that imposition of hands 
only without using any words is 
sufficient to the ordaining of 
Priests, because in the council 
there is no mention of words. 


the ordaining of Priests, which is such a piece of non sequitur 
logic, as we never learned yet in England, nor F. P. neither 
in all his logic lectures abroad ; who, undertaking here to tell 


the truth, should not for his credit’s sake 
first have left out Benedicente eum Episcopo, 
and then have told us that the council set 
down nothing but a bare ‘imposition of 
hands only :’ that word only (exclusive of 


COSIN, Sx 


F. P.—The truth is, the coun- 
cil, &c., only sets down the several 
forms of imposition of hands: 
three Bishops to lay hands upon 
a Bishop, the Bishop and Pres- 
bytery upon a Priest, and the 
Bishop alone upon a Deacon. 


906 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


words) is not the council’s, but his own: exclusive of paten 
and chalice, it may be whose it will: for there is no mention 
of any such there. 

Nor will it serve his turn to say, that the council did not 
er eet emer pose! 8 ritual, which was Cardinal Bel- 
compose a ritual, nor set down all larmine’s evasion, &c. For, though it did 
that was of necessity or inuse for wot compose a ritual, yet it made canons 

the giving of orders. ; 

(twelve of them) whereby those rituals were 
to be regulated ; and all the old rituals‘ (till their late addi- 
tion of the paten and the chalice cum sud forma came in) were 
composed according to those canons. Nor is there in all 
antiquity any book to be found, which doth more clearly set 
forth all things that be material for the giving of orders, 
than these canons do. And, if the fathers of the council 
had held the tradition of the paten and the chalice to be as 
necessary and essential herein, as F. P. does, it had been no 
such hard matter for them to have added it, nor would it 
have been a thing over tedious to have set it down in a line 
or two, (or less,) which would have been sufficient for that pur- 
pose, as in the description of the rites belonging to the infe- 
rior orders there they did. Wherein having been so punctual 
and diligent to set forth whatsoever was material and essen- 
tial for the giving of them, it is not to be imagined, that they 
would omit any thing which they thought material and essen- 
tial to the giving of those higher orders,—orders that were of 
far more moment and excellency, than those lower were. 

Nor, again, will it help him to say, that the council did 
therefore omit this rite of the paten and chalice in the or- 
daining of a Priest, because it was generally known: for by 
that reason the fifth canon’ there would have also omitted 
it in the making of a subdeacon, which was as commonly 
known as any of the rest. But to him the paten and the 
chalice are appointed to be given, ‘guia manus impositionem non 
accipit, i. [6.1 “ because he is to have no imposition of hands ;” 
—which is clearly as much to say, as that those three higher 
orders, (whereof priesthood is one,) which have that imposi- 
tion of hands, need not any paten or chalice to be given with 
them. And this concludes directly against him. 

But, to make the matter yet more clear, I will produce 


f As I made it appear in the former & [See above, p. 265. ] 
discourse. [See pp. 259, 271, 272. ] 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 307 


the authority and practice of another council (the second 
council of Seville" in Spain) two hundred years after that of 
Carthage in Africa; where, following the prescript form of 
this canon we have now in hand, because a priest had re- 
ceived imposition of hands from his Bishop without the words 
of benediction, (which yet another Priest then gave him,) they 
deposed him, and declared him to be no Priest at all. Had it 
been Episcopo benedicente, as well as manus imponente, the man 
had not lost his orders for want of traditio patene et calicis cum 
sud verborum formd, (a matter unknown to them in those days:) 
which is a plain proof that no such thing was needful. And 
it is as plain by Gratian, who put the canons of the council 
of Carthage into the body of the ecclesiastical laws, that the 
Church knew no other, nor followed any other rule, for more 
than five hundred years after that council of Seville, nor shall 
F. P. ever find either his paten or his chalice, or his forma 
verborum annexa, enjoined either by Pope or Council before 
his Instruction to the Armenians came in, come it from 
whence it can: of which (if he hath any mind to it) I have 
more a great deal to say than 1 said before‘, when he ventured 
to cite so old an author for it as Pope Innocent the Third 
was, who had been low laid in his grave above two hundred 
years before. But enough of this canon, out of which and 
all that have been said about it, I may be bold to conclude, 
that imposition of hands is the only necessary and material 
rite in ordination, without the paten and the chalice. 

XVII. The canons in the council of Trent. 
And truly, with no little disadvantage to 
his cause, might the council of Trent % 77> & 
have been cited, whereof we have no need for ours. In the 
fourteenth session) it professeth and proposeth to the belief 
of all Christian people, and so to his, that Priests, who be 
“rightly ordained by the imposition of hands,” are the Minis- 
ters, &c.; and in the fourth canon* (which relates to that 


F. P.—He might with as much 
advantage have cited the council 


h fCone. Hispal. II., A.D. 619, cap. 
y.—Labbe, tom. v. col. 1665.—Epis- 
copus .... fertur manum suam super 
eos tantum posuisse, et presbyter qui- 
dam illis, contra ecclesiasticum ordi- 
nem, benedictionem dedisse.... De- 
crevimus ut a gradu sacerdotalis vel 
Levitici ordinis, quem perverse adepti 
sunt, depositi, Xe. ] 


i [See above, ὃ xv. p. 803.—Conf. 
Scholast. Hist. Can. Script., num. elviii. 
vol, 111. p. 242.] 

2 Cap. iii. [de Sacram. extreme unc 
tionis; Labbe, tom. xiv. col. 822.—Sa- 
cerdotes rite ordinati per impositionem 
manuum. &c. } 

k [Ubi supr., col. 826. } 


x2 


308 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


passage) it will curse him, if he doth not acknowledge such 
Priests to be those which the Bishop hath ordained. Where- 
unto if he adds the fourth canon of the twenty-third ses- 
sion!, which wiil likewise anathematize him, unless he be- 
lieveth that the Holy Ghost is given when a Priest is or- 
dained, and that then the character of priesthood is im- 
printed upon him, when the Bishop saith, “Receive the 
Holy Ghost,” &c., he hath both the rite and the benediction, 
the matter and form of ordination used in the Church of 
England, manifestly acknowledged even by the council of 
Trent itself: wherein there is not a word, neither, concern- 
ing the delivery of the paten and the chalice, which Εἰ, P. 
holds to be so essential, that without them those that are 
made and ordained Priests are with him no Priests at all: 
as if he stood in no more awe of the anathema made out 
against him for it in the council, than some other people in 
the world do in many particulars besides. 
As for that canon which he cites in the twenty-second 
session, can. 1.™, if the council contra- 
oe ree Sipnests dicts itself, (which is no news at Trent,) 
matter of faith, that the Apostles let him look to it: for we are not bound 
δι αἱ ἐπε θρο  ἘΣ ἴο maintain it, who never yet received 
&e. it: though, in this canon, instituisse Apo- 
. stolos sacerdotes, et ordinasse ut ipsi, &c., 
doth not necessarily infer a present ordination, but may 
have reference to a future time, that is, to the time when 
the Spirit should be given them, and the character im- 
priated upon them, as we heard out of the council of Trent 
even now; before which character be imprinted, none can 
be a Priest. He had best, therefore, construe instifuisse 
sacerdotes, et ordinasse ut, that Christ in His last Supper 
designed His Apostles to be Priests, and appointed them to 
do as He had done, &c.; unless he will have the council of 
Trent say, that the character of Priesthood was twice im- 
printed, once at the last Supper, when Christ said, “Do 
this,” and once after His Resurrection, when He said, “ Re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost,” &c., which would amount to a re-ordi- 
nation ; for where the character is certainly there is ordina- 
tion properly so called, and no where else. And, for those 


1 [Ibid., col. 864.] m [Labbe, tom. xiv. col. 855.] 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 309 


words also at the Supper, “ Do this,” &c., if F. P. will give 
the council leave to explain itself, I will turn him to another 
place" there, where they are made words of precept or or- 
dinance, (as I have discoursed and proved before,) and not of 
proper ordination. But, if this will not help the council 
from crossing itself, (as many times it does,) let him, if he 
please, defend it better. For we have no need of it, but to 
oppose it both against itself, and against him. 

[XVIII.|] Of the place in Salmeron. 

And the like I say of Salmeron, out of whose words upon the 
place in 5. John, ‘“ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins,’’&c., 
I was to prove, that which F. P. at first denied, that by those 
words the Apostles and Priests of the New Testament had 
power given them, as well to preach and administer the Sacra- 
ments, as to remit sins, and reconcile penitents ; and so I did 
totidem verbis ; for these be Salmeron’s own words®, as they 
were cited to him, though F. P. skips them over, and says no- 
thing to them: ‘Accipite Spiritum Sanctum: quorum peccata,’ 
&c.—In his verbis, “non tantum illis datur potestas predicandi 
et sacramenta administrandi, sed etiam peculiariter sacramen- 
tum instituitur reconciliationis” penitentium : i. [e.] “ Receive 
the Holy Ghost: whose sins,” &c. By these words “ there is 
not only given them power to preach, and to administer the 
sacraments, but peculiarly also the sacrament of reconciling 
penitents is ordained. And this was a clear proof against 
F. P., nor doth he defend himself from it; which is as much 
to say, as that he gives it. So that thus far the candour and 
sincerity of the man is clear enough. It was added, as a 
collection out of Salmeron, that Christ here, by these words, 


- made His new Priests of the Gospel, whom He had designed 


before to offer sacrifice: where under the word made (by 
F. P.’s leave) there was no line drawn, nor under the word 
designed neither, (though he, when he comes to represent 
them over again to the Lady, hath with the sleight of his hand 
underlined them both, as if I had made them to be the 
very words of Salmeron.) He, that wants so much can- 


n Cap. i— Praecepit per verba hee. 
[ Labbe, ubi supr., col. 853.] 

ο [See Comm. in Evang., lib. xi. 
tract. 18, ed. Col. Agr., tom. xi. 
p- 136.—Nec tantum illis datur potes- 
tas predicandi evangelium, ut sacra- 


menta administrandi, sed etiam pecu- 
liariter sacramentum instituitur recon- 
ciliationis, in quo sacerdotes, premissa 
penitentiamagentium confessione, tau- 
quam ministri Dei, absolvunt. ] 





310 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


dour and sincerity in others, should not have shewed so 
little of it here in himself. But, though they be not Salme- 
ron’s very words, yet must they be the sense and meaning 
of his discourse in that place, or else the words and sense 
of his discourse there will hardly (nay will never) hold 
together. Speaking of the words and ceremony that Christ 
used there by breathing upon His Apostles, &c., he compares 
the initiation or consecrating of the Priests in the Old Testa- 
ment to the initiation or consecrating of the Priests in the 
New Testament, framing his comparison after this manner, 
and in these very words?: “ {9} olim sacerdotes nova cere- 
monid creati sunt, id est, lotione et unctione, ut in Exodo ha- 
betur, ita Christus in suffiatione, h. 6. communicatione Sut Spi- 
ritus in flatu significati, ad facultatem remittendi peccata sacer- 
dotes novos promovit :” i. [e.] “ As of old, in Exodus, the Priests 
were created by a new ceremony of washing and anointing,” 
(I trow they were no Priests before,) “so Christ promoted new 
Priests by breathing upon them, that is, by communicating 
His Spirit to them, signified by that breath for the power of 
remitting sins.” And, if Christ promoted His new Priests, as 
Moses created the old, by a new ceremony, I believe by the 
rules of logic (which F. P. called for) it will never be made 
good, that they were Priests before. In comparatis que sunt 
ejusdem nature, the reddition must answer the antecedent, or 
else the antecedent was not laid for the purpose, but might 
have been better let alone. Therefore F. P. may choose, 
whether he will make Salmeron speak quite from the pur- 
pose, or acknowledge the sense, the sequel, and the meaning 
of his words to be, that, as Moses, so Christ made His new 
Priests here by a new ceremony. For, if they were not made 
new, what does this comparison here? Besides, to translate 
sacerdotes novos promovit, that “ He made new Priests,” will 
be found to be as good construction as any F. P. hath made of 
it by his words of “ advancing” and “ exalting” them to a new 
power; where, by the way, I had thought that new power 
would not have been exalted by F. P. above the old, which 
he saith was given them before, when they were made Priests 
at the last Supper. And, though Salmeron’s words be ad fa- 
cullatem remittendi peccata sacerdotes novos promovit, i. [e.] 


P [Salmeron, ubi supr., p. 135.—See above, p. 257, not. s. | 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 911 


that “ Christ promoted His new Priests to the power of remit- 
ting sins,” yet it is not to the power of remitting sins only, 
nor was the breath of the Spirit communicated to them for 
nothing else, as F. P. imagines; nor did Salmeron say so, 
nay, he said directly the contrary1: His verbis non tantum 
datur illis potestas reconciliationis penitentium, sed etiam potes- 
tas predicandi et administrandi sacramenta: “ By these words 
was given them not only a power of remitting sins, or recon- 
ciling penitents, but also a power of preaching and adminis- 
tering the Sacraments.” If a power of administering the Sa- 
craments, (none excepted,) then a power to do that which 
Christ bade them do at the last Supper, to consecrate or 
offer and distribute the Eucharist. For they all belong to 
the administration of the blessed Sacrament. So that the 
words which follow’ in Salmeron, “ sicut in cend ad offerendi 
sacrificit potestatem jam creaverat et ordinaverat,” unless they 
be taken, and rendered in a large sense, for designing and ap- 
pointing the Apostles to that office, or for giving them jus 
ad rem, not in a strict and proper sense for giving them jus 
in re, or for missio in possessionem rei, as I declared before, 
I see not how they can in any other good sense possibly stand 
together with his former words, to make his whole discourse 
uniform and equal to itself. By the interpretation, therefore, 
that I gave of this passage in Salmeron, I did him more ser- 
vice. than Εἰ, P. was aware of, or (as it should seem) was 
willing to let him receive. In the mean while, if it were 
otherwise, if Father Salmeron and F. P. were both of one 
mind, as they are not, (for he holds that, by those words of 
our Saviour in 8. John, the Apostles had a power given them 
to preach and administer the Sacraments, which this Father 
will not acknowledge.) yet, being such young Fathers as they 
are, and in this particular so different from the old, what 
were Salmeron’s opinion and forgetfulness of himself to us ? 
For we regard him not, more than to produce him (as the 
Dr. did) ex abundanti, if any where he can be taken either 
contradicting himself, or any of his party, whereof F. P. is 
one. Who, as he began this paragraph F. P.—Thus to abuse your 


5 : ‘ : ladyship’ dulit @ 
with abusing the credulity of ladies, sohe goeihhim. = 


1 [ See the precise words, supr. citat., r [Salm., ubi supr., p. 135.—See 
p- 308, not. m.! above, p. 267, not. s. | 


812 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


is often putting that faculty of his into practice among them, 
and making them believe, (though by the grace of God they 
will have no confidence in him,) that the Romanists have no 
differences among themselves. 

XIX. Of the place in Bellarmine. 

And now we shall have somewhat to do with him: for the 

Father is fallen into a fit of exclamation 
Ἐς P.—Is it possible that a δ ore 
man should go thus against his again, and it is to be feared scarce knows 
ae conscience and against the wel] what he says. It will be worth the 
ght of his own reason? : 

while, therefore, if we take a little pains 
with him, and endeavour to bring him out of this fit; that, 
if it be possible, he may learn to speak more peaceably to his 
neighbours. For guid dignum tanto, aut que causa est talia 
fandi? The words of Card. Bell., for his own better satisfac- 
tion, and not that we had any need of him, were cited out 
of his first book de R. P. c. 12. § Dicess; where he brings 
in one demanding this question of him: “If the power of 
the keys were only promised and not given to the Apostles 
in 5. Matthew, in what place then were they given to them 
afterwards?” And his answer is, that “they were given in 
S. John; the key of jurisdiction by those words, ‘As My 
Father sent Me, so send I you;’ and the key of order by 
the words following, ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins 
ye do remit,’ &c.” And, if these be not Bellarmine’s words, 
and therefore, a man would think, Bellarmine’s opinion too, 
(in this place at least, for of contradictions he is full enough,) 
let F. P. keep his fit upon him still, and cry out of impossi- 
bilities till he grows weary both of them and himself. But 

the words are plain, and there is no avoiding of them. 

1. Not, first, by his contrary opinion in another place: 
for, to follow F. P. in his own vein, (though he forgot his rhe- 
toric here, when he cries out, ‘Good Mr. Dr.’, and directs his 
discourse to a lady; yes, and follow him in it:) Good Father 
Prior, do not you know that it is no unusual thing with Card. 
Bell. to cross and contradict himself in his opinions? do not 
you know that King James in his Apology for the Oath of 
Allegiance had noted no less than eleven contradictions in 
him? and those in a very few passages of his controversies ? 
But, whether you know it, or you know it not, I am sure this 

* (Tom. i. col, 661.—See p. 257, note t. ] 





IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 313 


may go for a twelfth, which I noted to you before‘, and had 
seen it without the help of your direction in the very same 
page. For can there be a plainer contradiction than this, that 
the Apostles were not made Priests (that is, had no orders) 
but at the last Supper, and that they had orders (that is, 
were made Priests) after the Resurrection. Were, and were 
not, are such contradictions, as I believe all the logic and all 
the rhetoric too, that F. P. hath, will never be able to make 
them agree together. So that, though Bellarmine were of one 
opinion in the § His igitur, yet in the § Dices, Si non, (the 
next but one,) he was of another. And for this other it was, 
that I cited him against F. P. 

2. Nor, secondly, by his wt supra divimus : for what was it 
that he said before", in his § Respondeo de posteriore loco ? 
Wasit, that, “by these words” in S. John, “all the power of 
the keys concerning order was not given?” Jurisdiction was 
a key too. Indeed, he says* the power of that key was not 
given by them, and more he says not, neither in loco posterior?, 
nor in loco priori, that is, neither first nor last. So that not 
all the power of both the keys, and yet all the power of one, 
of the key of order, may stand very well together, for aught 
that F. P. hath to say against it. 

3. Nor, thirdly, by his words there, ad remitienda peccata : 
(for, if I take no notice of them, I know F. P. will fall into 
his fit again, as he did about Salmeron.) But, having an- 
swered that matter there’, I think I shall not need to take 
any notice of it here, more than that the tantum is not 
joined with it, but ordinum, that is, it is not for remitting of 
sins only, but the power of order only; 
which ἘΝ Bellarmine at odds with F. P., op Senn Pi ἜΣ τς 
who told us, ἃ while since, that the power of that power of orders, there is re- 

ie: ee : ᾿ : quired the power of jurisdiction. 
jurisdiction also is required to the remis- 
sion of sins. Such ill luck still hath he found with this word 
only, both where he met with it, and where he met it not. 

4. Nor, lastly, by what he says in his first book de Ord. 
c. 97, wherein, if Cardinal Bellarmine had said, that by the 


t [See pp. 269, 270. notes x, z. ] * [See § Respondeo, ut supr.—Conf. 
u [Bellarm., ubi supr., tom. i. col. ὃ Dices, col. 661.] 
657.—Certum est, non dari per illa Υ [See above, ὃ xviii. p. 309. ] 
verba omnem potestatem clavium, sed z [See Bellarm., de Sacram. Ord. 


tantum potestatem ordinis ad remit- cap. ix. § Tertio.—Op., tom. iii. col. 
tenda peccata. ] 1677. ] 





314 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


consent of all men, (Fathers, and Councils, and all,) the Priests 
of the New Testament were not made, created, and ordained, 
by those words in 8. John, he should have manifestly con- 
tradicted himseif in no less than six of his own sayings but a 
little before*: 1. That by the council of Trent itself (which 
he would have to be noted, too, for them that are of another 
mind) it is declared, that Priests be then ordained, when 
those words, “ Receive the Holy Ghost,” &c., are spoken to 
them, and imposition of hands given them: 2. That by the 
tradition and consent of all bishops, and all ancient councils, 
orders are then conferred, when hands are laid upon them; 
and, when hands are laid upon them, those words (only) are 
spoken to them, as appears out of the Pontifical and the cus- 
tom of the Church: 3. That S. Chrysostom was then made 
and created a Priest, (out of Sim. Metaph.) 4. That they had 
then their full ordination, (out of S. Jerome:) 5. That they 
were then ordained Priests, (out of 8. Austin, and the general 
doctrine of the Fathers ;) and 6. That no man can believe it, 
—if so many Fathers and Councils (speaking professedly con- 
cerning the rites of ordination) had been of the other mind, 
the mind that F. P. is of, for the chalice and the paten, (with 
which his Accipe potestatem sacrificandi is ever joined,) 
that they would never have made any mention of it at all. 
So that his omnium consensu will prove to be no more, than 
the consent of those, (Soto, and others,) whom he had named 
before > to be at variance among themselves, whether the im- 
position of hands, or the tradition of the paten and the 
chalice, (with either of which their forms go together,) was 
the essential rite of ordination; and those were late men all: 
for none of the ancient (as he says himself) ever differed 
about it, but were all of our mind: idem enim veteres passim 
docent. From whence I shall be bold to conclude against 
F. P., that the Doctor was not the first that ever pretended 
to it. As for Bellarmine’s own conclusion after all this, the 
truth is, he was puzzled what to say, seeing the stream of the 
Fathers went against the new opinion, and therefore he is 
fain to comply with them both, and conclude “ for a re-ordina- 
tion, that Priests are first ordained by chalice and paten, and 
Accipe potestatem sacrificandi, and then, that they are also 


* [Ibid., §§ Ipsum, Denique, Am- > [See ὃ Altera; ibid. col. 1675. ] 
brosius, Dicere; col. i676, 1677. | ὁ [Ibid., § Ad tertium, col. 1678. } 


IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 315 


(or again) ordained by Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, &c., and 
imposition of hands. Yet he is not of F. P.’s mind for all 
that: for he does not say it is necessario credendum this, 
(as F. P. would make the Lady believe upon pain of damna- 
tion,) but he says‘ it is no more than “ credible,”—an opinion, 
or a point which may be credible, at the most,—that Christ 
instituted any such rite of giving the paten and chalice to 
the Priests that are to be ordained, whereby the power of 
offering sacrifice might be signified. And by this time I 
trust the man is got out of his fit, will exclaim no more 
against sufficiency and honesty, against candour and sin- 
cerity, against conscience and the light of reason, but calm 
himself, and confess that Bellarmine was brought in an ill 
time for him. 

Now, when he hath done with the Doctor, to be nibbling 
here at the honour of Bishop Andrewes, who said *, (and knew 
always what he said, si quis alius,) that they who are ordained 
Priests are not ordained by any other words or verse than 
this, John xx. 23, “ Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye 
do remit,” &c., and to tell him, that he should have the honour 
also to be the first author of that doctrine upon I know not 
what light condition, is such a slighting of him, as we here, 
who honour him more than F. P. doth his Card. Bell., can- 
not well endure. He was a man so eminent in learning and 
piety; of such extraordinary worth and note, so orthodox and 
Catholic, so exact in all his writings, and so free from all 
novelties, that it will be the Doctor’s honour (and so would 
it be F. P.’s too) to carry his books after him, and to learn 
what he said and taught us, especially in such doctrines as 
‘this, which he received both from Scripture, and his prede- 
cessors, the Bishops and Fathers of the Catholic Church, by 
a never interrupted tradition, till the humour of setting up 
new practices and maintaining new doctrines, without war- 
rant of Scriptures, Fathers, or reason, came in among the 
Roman party. And therefore F. P. should do well to rectify 
his opinion, and his conscience both, as well in this as in 
many other particulars; at least, to give over his practice 
and his endeavours for the subversion of ladies. 

XX. The postscript letter to the Lady : 

To whom he writes, as if he had thrown off his black hood, 

4 [1014., ὃ Atque hine, col. 1679. ] e [See above, p. 258, note u.] 


910 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS 


and put on a fine new white ruff of rhetoric, or asif he meant 
to preach a sermon to her; but with such long-winded 
periods, and yet with short reaching arguments to the busi- 
ness intended, that he is like to lose all the cost and pains 
which he hath bestowed upon it. The first period, consisting 
of nine lines together, is somewhat pathetical, but too long 
to repeat at large. 

That our Lord Jesus Christ left the blessed Sacrament to 
His Church, as a gift befitting His love and greatness, there 
is none that doubteth. That at His last Supper He declared 
Himself to be ordained a Priest for ever after the order of 
Melchisedec, is a question, and but an opinion at the best. 
That He there offered His precious Body and Blood to God 
the Father, under the forms of bread and wine, in a real proper 
Sacrifice, before He offered It upon the Cross, is a late inven- 
tion, and a doctrine improbable. That He gave any such 
commission to His Apostles and their successors in the Priest- 
hood, by His precept to do what He had done, is true im an 
ancient and Catholic, but not in a new Roman sense. That 
a greater gift than this He could not give, though it be true, 
yet it is not agreeable to his notes upon Salmeron, who said 
erewhiles, that the Apostles were exalted to the power of ab- 
solution above it. That this, his real sacrificing of Christ for 
the quick and the dead in purgatory, is the pure oblation 
spoken of by the prophet Malachi, or the daily sacrifice spoken 
of by the prophet Daniel, he will never prove. That the food 
spoken of by King David may by an allegory or resemblance 
be applied to the heavenly food, given us as an abridgment of 
all Christ’s wonders in the blessed Sacrament, we will never 
gainsay; nor that this is the food of life, the banquet in 
which Christ is received, the memory of His passion renewed, 
the soul filled with grace, and a pledge of our eternal glory 
given us. For all this we believe and profess: and of all 
this (sacrament and sacrifice both) the Lady will never be 
content to be deprived, nor is there any question to be made 
of it. 

It would be but actum agere, to go over the rest of this 
letter: there is nothing im it, which hath not been answered 
already. 

I have proved all that he demanded, &c., in order: 1. That 
by imposition of hands Orders were given: 2. That with im. 








IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. ΘΙ 


position of hands a benediction was given; and, 3. That this 
benediction was the words which we now use. 

And, though it be a thing much to be lamented, that such 
a cause as this, (which might have been so well defended by 
others, that had sufficiency and honesty enough to deal with 
F. P.,) hath fallen into the hands of one no better instructed 
by his diligent research into antiquity, than not to find any 
one that makes for it, (of which sit liber judew,) yet I will 
undertake to find one ancient author for him, if he will, and 
ten more to that one besides, who will tell him,—a man, that 
did mean to prove what he speaketh, would surely take the 
measure of his words shorter, specially when he says (and 
proves not one word of his saying to be true) that all agree, 
and that all (sacred text and all) are of his side. Of which 
over-reaching speech, and of other extravagancies in his 
language, if he hath yet taken up, (as I believe out of his 
better ingenuity he will, when he hath well examined the 
witnesses,) and hereupon shall not confess and acknowledge 
his oversight, but go on still to defend it, he must beware 
lest by such kind of defences he leave an opinion in the 
minds of others, that he is more desirous to maintain what 
he hath unadvisedly said, than careful to say nothing but 
that which may justly be maintained. 

But the Lady, who, being not engaged to any faction, 
false doctrine, or heresy whatsoever, is undoubtedly within 
the bosom of the Catholic Church already, and whose edu- 
cation hath been in the true Faith and religion of the Ca- 
tholic Church professed and honoured by us in the Church 


of England, will by the grace of God continue in that pro- 


fession still, in which the sacred power and succession of 
Priesthood, together with all other parts of Christian religion 
necessary to the constitution and being of a Church, hath 
been derived from Christ and His Apostles, and from the 
Fathers and doctors that followed them in all ages here- 
tofore. 

And being so safe where she is, (in the service of Almighty 
God according to the public directions and established rules 
of that Church,) we trust well that she will not suffer herself 
hereafter to be any longer abused and wrought upon by 
those of the Roman party, who pretend their late doctrines 
and practices to be Catholic, which as the ancient never 


318 CONCERNING THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS, Xe. 


knew, so the present Catholic Church of Christ never re- 
ceived universally at this day; and among whom she cannot 
have the doctrine and the sacraments of Christ’s Church in 
that integrity and purity wherein she desires to conserve her 
own conscience, but should be brought (which God forbid) 
to profess a certain new religion, (which religion, as far as it 
differs from ours, doth not make the Romanists themselves a 
Church,) wherein for her comfort, first, in their public service 
she should not understand a word, and have sometimes half 
a sacrament given her, and most times none at all, and then, 
for the better exercise of her charity and obedience, must re- 
nounce the Church of England, (a true, pure, and orthodox 
Church of Christ,) as she would do the synagogue of the 
devil, and damn all people for heretics, (king and country, 
father and mother, kindred and friends and all,) that will not 
turn with her for company, or fall off at least before they 
die. These, besides the belief of the invocation of saints, to 
be used with the same words wherewith we invocate AI- 
mighty God, the belief of the adoration of the images and 
relics of Christ, and the blessed Virgin, &c., to be done with 
the same worship wherewith they themselves are adored, 
the belief of purgatory fire, of private mass, of transubstan- 
tiated bread, of seven true and proper sacraments, neither 
more nor less, and of the Pope’s power to excommunicate and 
‘depose princes‘; and all these with one and the same faith 
that we believe one God and the Incarnation of our Saviour: 
—to these, I say, and many other new and strange devices in 
religion, it is, that F. P. would withdraw and [per]vert this 
Lady ; from which that God would preserve both her and 
all good Christians besides, shall be and is the most hearty 


prayer of his 
most devoted and humble servant, 


“. Ὁ. 


S. Germ. July 25, in festo Sancti Jacobi 
Apostoli, 1645. 


τ Cone. Lateran., can. iii. [Labbe, terram exponat Catholicis oceupandum, 
tom. xi. col. 148.]—Significetur hoc qui eam exterminatis hereticis sine 
summo Pontifici ; ut ipse vassallos ab ulla contradictione possideant. 
ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos, et 





- statueretur concilio generali. 


LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN 
ONE KIND. 


[ The following letter from a Roman Catholic and a Lady, together with Bishop 
Cosin’s Answer, is preserved in the Smith MSS. in the Bodleian Library, 


num. xl. p. 101, et seq. | 


Madam, 


Not only the Catholics do affirm, that it is enough to salvation to re- 
ceive Christ’s Body and Blood under one kind and form, but also Luther 
himself. Among other places your honour may see his book of the Ba- 
bylonian captivity, folio 15, where * he says that we do not sin, when we 
receive only under one kind. And his reason is, because there is no 
commandment of God to receive Christ under both the forms, Further- 
more, folio 98, he confesses* that in the Conference of Augsburg, which 


g [See Luth., de Captiv. Babylon., 
§ Prima ergo.—Op., ed. Jenz, 1564, 
tom. ii. fol. 262, B.—Prima ergo cap- 
tivitas hujus sacramenti est quoad ejus 
substantiam seu integritatem, quam 
nobis abstulit Romana tyrannis: non 
quod peccent in Christum qui und specie 
utuntur, cum Christus non preceperit 
ulla uti, sed arbitrio cujuslibet reliquit, 
dicens, ‘ Quotiescunque hee feceritis, 
in Mei memoriam facietis ;’ sed quod 
illi peecant qui, hoc arbitrio volentibus 
uti, prohibent utranque dari: culpa non 
est in Jaicis, sed sacerdotibus.—See also 
ὃ Hactenus, fol. 259, B.—Hactenus ego 
stultus sensi pulcrum fore, si pro laicis 
utraque species sacramenti porrigenda 
Hane 
sententiam frater plusquam doctissi- 
mus correcturus dicit, neque precep- 
tum esse neque consultum, sive a 
Christo sive Apostolis, ut utraque 
species porrigatur laicis; ideoque Eccle- 
siz relictum judicio, quid hic facien- 
dum omittendumve sit, cui necesse sit 
obedire. Hecille. Rogas forte, que 
intemperiz hominem agitent, aut con- 
tra quem scribat? cum ego non dam- 
narim unius speciei usum, et Ecclesiz 
judicio relinquerim utriusque usum 
statuendum: id quod ipse conatur as- 
serere, 60 ipso contra me pugnaturus, 
&c.—However, the whole strength of 
Luther’s argument is on the other side. 
Concludo, itaque, (he says, fol. 262, 


B.,) negare utranque speciem laicis esse 
impium et tyrannicum, nec in manu 
angeli, nedum pape, et concilii cujus- 
cunque. Nee moror concilium Con- 
stantiense, cujus auctoritas si valet, 
cur non valet et Basiliense, quod con- 
tra statuit Bohemis licere utranque 
speciem suscipere, &c. } 

h [This assertion is not made good 
by any thing, that can be found in the 
editions of Luther’s Latin works. For 
conclusive evidence on the other side, 
see Respons. Theologorum Pontificio- 
rum ad oblatam a Protestantibus Con- 
fessionem, art. De utraque specie, &c. ; 
ap. Georgii Ccelestini Hist. Comit. 
Auguste celebrat. an. 1530, ed. Fran- 
cof. 1597, tom. iii. fol. 8, B.— Unde re- 
jiciendum est, quod consuetudinem 
dandi unam speciem aiunt esse contra 
jus divinum.—Item, conf. Lutheri judi- 
cium de Articulis ad abusus spectanti- 
bus, § Primo, de utraque Sacramenti 
specie, &c.; ibid. fol. 37, B.—In hoc 
articulo nihil adversariis concedere et lar- 
giri possumus, cum hee ordinatio divi- 
nitus ab ipso Christo instituta, δζούχγ κα 
Quod vero adversarii postulant, ut in 
nostris Ecclesiis doceamus, nec eos 
peceare aut mandato Dei adversari, qui 
unam tantum speciem vel porrigunt 
vel accipiunt,‘id cur facere nequeamus, 
ex causis supra positis et indicatis satis 
liquet. ] 





320 LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 


was betwixt the Catholics and Protestants, it was agreed by both the 
parties, that it was sufficient to salvation to communicate under the ac- 
cidents either of bread or wine. Your honour may also see his Sermon 
of the holy Sacrament, where? first he teaches, if the people demand to 
receive Christ under one form, that the Church is not obliged to give 
them Christ under both the forms: next he says, if the Church ordain 
us to communicate under one form only, that we should be content and 
obedient: lastly, he affirms that the Church hath power and authority 
to command the same. With Luther agrees Hospinian, a famous Lu- 
theran, in his Sacramental History, part ii. folio 12". Finally, John 
Calvin, in his Commentaries upon the 6th chapter of S. John ', confesses 
that the Bohemians cannot conceive! the necessity of the cup by those 
words of the Lord, ‘ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and 
drink His Blood, ye have no life in you.’ 


1[con- 
vince ? ] 


[ The foregoing letter is without either date or signature. ] 


i (Perhaps no Latin version of this 
Sermon has been published. The pas- 
sages referred to are found in Hospi- 
nian, as produced in the following note. ] 

© ( Hospinian’s words (Hist. Sacram., 
ed. Tiguri 1602, par. ii. fol. 12, B.) are 
as follows: “ Eadem varietas et incon- 
stantia, et crebra tanquam tempesta- 
tum, sic sententiarum comimutatio, in 
aliis quoque de Sacramento Eucharis- 
tie articulis apud Lutherum in suis 
scriptis invenitur. De communione 
sub una vel utraque specie, anno xix. 
in Sermone de Sacramento, primo di- 
cit, “non necesse esse utranque speciem 
dari, sed alteram tantum sufficere:’’ 
secundo, ‘satis esse, sipopulus alteram 
speciem solum petat :’’ tertio, “ Eccle- 
siam potestatem habere unam tantum 
speciem instituendi, eaque populum 
contentum esse debere, si ab Ecclesia 
ordinetur:’’ quarto, “Sacerdotes in 
conspectu omnium utranque speciem 
sumere, eoque populo satisfieri.””’ Quin- 
to, “ Mihi placeret,’’ inquit, “si gene- 
rale Concilium utranque speciem po- 
pulo restitueret, non quod opus habeat 
utraque, et unica non sufficiat, sed 
propter pleniorem  significationem :”’ 
sexto, ‘“‘neutra specie opus esse, sed 


tantum fide :’’ septimo, “ utranque spe- 
ciem non magis necessariam esse, quam 
immersionem in Baptismo:’’ octavo, 
‘‘alteram speciem unam tantum sacra- 
menti partem esse, ideoque non posse 
totam communionem sanctorum signi- 
ficare:’’? nono, ‘‘ Christum pro omni- 
bus fidelibus utranque speciem institu- 
isse. Anno xx. scripsit declarationem 
in Sermonem de Eucharistia, ubi sic 
inter alia loquitur: “ Non dixi, neque 
consului, nec est intentio mea, ut unus 
aut aliquot Episcopi propria auctori- 
tate incipiant alicui utranque speciem 
porrigere, nisi ita institueretur ac pre- 
ciperetur in aliquo generali concilio ;’’ 
&c. (Tom..i. Germ. fol. 211.)—There 
appears to be nothing in this place, 
from which it can be concluded, that 
Hospinian agreed with Luther in opi- 
nion. | 

' [See Calvin’s Comm. in S. Joh. vi. 
53.—Op., ed. Amstel. 1667, tom. xi. 
pag. 65.— Nec vero recte Bohemi, 
quum hoc testimonio probarent usum 
¢alicis promiscuum debere omnibus 
esse.—Calvin however adds: “ Institu- 
tio calicem omnibus una cum pane 
communem facit: mandat enim ut 
inde bibamus omnes. ] 





LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 32] 


AN ANSWER TO THIS LETTER. 


TuERE be four several persons produced in this letter for 
the communion under one kind. And, whoever he was that 
penned it, he hath mistaken them all four: 1. the Catholics, 
2. Luther, 3. Hospinmian, and 4. Calvin. 


1. The Catholics. 


Quest.—“ Not only the Catholics do affirm, that it is 
enough to salvation to receive Christ’s Body and Blood 
under one kind and form.” 

Answ.—In this they are no Catholics, that affirm it. For 
the Catholic Church of Christ ever holds it necessary to 
follow Christ’s institution, and to obey His precept: which 
precept they wilfully neglect and break, that do not only 
hold it sufficient to communicate under one kind, but have 
also made a law to punish others for heretics, (that is, to 
burn and damn them,) that hold it their duty to keep 
Christ’s order, and to communicate under both. And this 
have the Roman Catholics done in their late council of Con- 
stance™, and in their late synod of Trent»: wherein they have 
not only departed from their own ancient piety and practice, 
but likewise from the public and universal order of the whole 
Catholic Church of Christ for many ages before, and since, 
(themselves only excepted:) as may, if need be, be made 
evident by many and clear testimonies against them. 


2. Luther. 


Quest.—*“ But also Luther himself in his book of the Baby- 
lonian Captivity,’ in “the Conference of Augsburg,” and in 
his “ Sermon of the Holy Sacrament.” 

Answ.—First, This toucheth not us of the Church of Eng- 
land, (nor any protestant Church besides :) for, if Luther did 
at any time say so, or somewhat to that purpose, which is 
here alleged, yet, as we pin not any part of our faith and 
religion upon Luther’s sleeve, so in this particular (and in 


m [See Conc. Constantiens., sess. » (Cone. Trid., sess. xxi. can. 1, 2, ὃ. 
xiii— Labbe, tom. xii. col. 100. ] —Ibid., tom. xiv. col. 847.] 


COSIN. ¥ 


aoe LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 


all others) we are to follow Christ’s sayings, and not his, 
where he followeth not Christ. And the truth is, we follow 
not either Luther or Calvin, no more than we do the Pope 
himself, or any of his followers, where either he or they have 
departed from the precept of Christ, or left the steps and 
practice of all the ancient fathers. And Luther for his part 
is very well content to have it so. 

But, Secondly, To such manner of his sayings as be here 
in this letter drawn out of him, to make him speak for the 
pretended sufficiency and lawfulness of communicating under 
one kind, Luther hath already answered for himself, that 
such passages as these are to be found only in his first and 
more early writings, which he penned when it was yet scarce 
day with him. For, afterwards, being assisted with a greater 
light and knowledge of the truth than he had been before, 
he came to be of a clearer judgment, and another mind, in 
this, and in other matters besides, persisting in the profession 
and defence of them all his life long. Therefore, when the 
first tome of his works, (wherein among others they reprinted 
his book De Captivitate Babylonicd,) was published to the 
world, he set his preface before it, and said°®: “ First of all, I 
beseech the pious reader, and I beseech him for our Lord 
Jesus Christ’s sake, that he would peruse these my (first) 
writings with judgment and much commiseration of me; re- 
membering that I was sometimes a monk and a most furious 
papist, so overwhelmed and drunk with the Pope’s doctrines, 
when I first set upon this cause, that I was ready, if it had 
been in my power, to have put all men to death, that would 
any way gainsay them. .... So that you shall find in these 
my first books, how many things, and how great, I did then 
grant in my submission to the Pope, which in time following, 
and at present, I hold to be abominable, and abhor as the 
highest blasphemy. Thou wilt therefore (gentle reader) be 


ο [See Luth. op., ed. Jenx, 1564, 
tom. 1. prope init. — Mart. Lutherus 
pio Lectori S.—Sed ante omnia oro 
pium lectorem, et oro propter ipsum 
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, 
ut ista legat cum judicio, imo cum 
multa miseratione. Et sciat me fu- 
isse aliquando monachum, et papis- 
tam insanissimum, cum istam cau- 
sam aggressus sum, ita ebrium, imo 
submersum in dogmatibus Papz, ut 
paratissimus fuerim omnes, si pctu- 


issem, occidere, aut occidentibus co- 
Operari et consentire, qui Pape vel 
una syllaba obedientiam detractarent. 
Ἐς Ita invenies, in istis meis scrip- 
tis prioribus, quam multa et magna 
humillime concesserim Pape, que 
posterioribus, et istis temporibus, pro 
summa blasphemia et abominatione 
habeo et execror. Dabis ergo hune 
errorem, pie lector, vel (ut ipsi calum- 
niantur) antilogiam, tempori et imperi- 
tie mee; &c.] 








LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 323 


pleased to impute this my error, or (as my adversaries call it) 
this my contradiction, to the time, and to the ignorance that 
then was in me.” 

For Luther was in no better condition, than other learned 
and pious men have used to be, who perceive not all truth at 
once, but professed himself (as 8. Austin did) to be of their 
number, who learned to amend their errors with time, and 
study, and the blessing of God upon them. 

And this error may be the rather borne with in him, be- 
cause among others it was Cardinal Bellarmine’s case, as 
well as his, to retract many things that he had said before: 
which was sometimes S. Peter’s and S. Paul’s case besides, 
(better men than either Luther or Bellarmine,) who said,— 
one of them, ‘ Of a truth he perceived now that which he did [Acts x. 
not perceive before,’ (for he was in an error about it,)—and 551 
the other, ‘That which he did and said against the truth at [1 Tim. i. 
first, he did it ignorantly,’ (and therefore hoped the sooner 15 
to be pardoned.) 

But there is another of Luther’s prefaces, set before the 
‘Articles of Smalcald,’ which he wrote to be exhibited to the 
intended council of Trent, whenever it should be called, or 
meet, after his death ; wherein he takes notice of some men’s 
alleging his own sayings against himself, (as this letter doth;) 
and thus he pleads against them, and answers? for himself: 

“T thought fit to publish these Articles, that they who shall 
outlive me may have a testimony of my faith and confession 


P [See Articul. Smalcaldic., a Mart. 
Luth. script. ann. MDXxxvul., pref., ὃ 
Cum autem; ap. Libr. Symbolic. Eccl. 
Evang., ed. 8vo. Johannis A. H. Titt- 
mann, Lips. 1827, p. 230.—Ideo et 
nihilominus articulos hos in publicum 
emittere volui, ut si citius ex hac vita 
evocarer, quam concilium congregare- 
tur, (quod ita eventurum esse omuino 
confido et spero, cum lucifugi isti ne- 
bulones nimium in protrahendo et im- 
pediendo concilio laborent, ) ut, inquam, 
li, qui post me vivent et remanebunt, 
testimonium et confessionem meam 
haberent, et proponere possent adjunc- 
tum confessioni quam antea publicavi, 
in qua hactenus constanter permansi et 
permanebo deinceps per Dei gratiam. 
Quid enim dicam ὃ Quomodo querelam 
instituam ? Adhue superstes sum, scri- 
bo, conciones habeo, et prelego publice 
et quotidie: et tamen virulenti homines, 
non tantum ex adversariis, sed etiam 


falsi fratres qui nobiscum se sentire 
aiunt, mea scripta et doctrinam meam 
simpliciter contra me adferre et allegare 
audent, me vivente, vidente, et audi- 
ente, etiamsi sciant me aliter docere ; 
et volunt virus suum meo labore exor- 
nare, et miseros homines meo sub no- 
mine decipere et seducere. Quid ergo, 
bone Deus, post obitum meum fiet? 
Deberem quidem ad omnia respondere, 
dum adhue vivo. Sed, quzso, qaomodo 
omnia diaboli ora obstruere solus pos- 
sum, presertim eorum (utpote venena- 
torum omnium) qui nec audire nec at- 
tendere volunt quid scribamus, sed in 
eo toti sunt, ut verba nostra etiam in 
minutissimis literis scelerate pervertant 
et depravent ?—These articles have 
been also published in German, e Pala- 
tino codice MS, accurate edit. a Phi- 
lip. Marheineke, 4to. Berolini, 1817 ; 
4. Vv. pp. 40, 41.] 


¥2 


994 LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND, 


agreeable to that which I have published heretofore ; wherein 
as I have hitherto constantly persisted, so by the grace of 
God I purpose to do still for ever hereafter. For what shall 
I say? or how should [ begin my complaint? I am yet alive, 
and I write books, I preach sermons, and read public lectures 
every day; and yet a sort of virulent-minded men, (adver- 
saries and false brethren,) that say they are of my mind,” 
(as the author of this letter doth for the communion under 
one kind,) “will dare to brmg my own writings, and allege 
my own doctrine against me; though in the meanwhile 
they know well enough that I hold and teach the contrary ; 
hereby covering over their poison with my sayings, and 
seducing simple persons with my name. If they do this, 
while I am now alive, and while I look on and hear it,—in 
the name of God, what will they do when I am dead? Truly, 
I should do well to answer them before I die: but how is 
it possible for me alone to stop all the mouths of the evil- 
speakers,—specially of those men that will neither hear nor 
mark what I say, but set themselves wholly to pervert my 
words, and wickedly to deprave them ?”’ 

For be it known unto the writer of this letter, and to all 
others that shall take advantage (as he doth) of Luther’s 
first writings, when he was yet both in habit and in heart 
a Popish Friar, that first, in the same year wherein he set 
forth his book of the Babylonian Captivity, (which was in 
the year 1520, and but three years after he began to dis- 
pute and preach against the abuses of the Pope’s pardons,) 
he wrote and published a book‘ for the communion to be 
given to the people under both kinds, wishing and desiring 
that it might be allowed them by a council’. For he raised 
his thoughts no higher about it at the beginning. But, when 


4 [There is no Latin version of this 
Treatise, which originally appeared in 
German.—Conf. Scheldul. Inhibitionis, 
sub nomine Episc. Misnens. edit., ap. 
Lutheri op., tom. i. fol. 460, B.X—Cum 
itaque tractatulus quidam sive sermo 
in vulgari idiomate de sacratissimo 
Corporis Christi Sacramento, sub no- 
mine et inscriptione Doctoris Martini 
Lutheri, contra novissimi sacri Late- 
ranensis generalis concilii statuta, pas- 
sim per civitatem et dicecesim nostras 
publice venalis exponatur, in quo inter 
cztera comperiuntur, ‘ Auctori illius 
pulcrum expediensque videri, quod Ec- 


clesia per generale concilium statu- 
eret omnes utriusque status Christi 
fideles sub utraque specie, &c. | 

r [ In the year preceding, (i. e. 1519,) 
Luther had used the following words: 
** Ni ergo probent esse aliam significa- 
tionem verbi, ‘ Bibere,’ &c., nos nostram 
sententiam retinebimus, quod omnibus 
ex calice illo bibendum, neque vel con- 
suetudinem vel conciliorum decreta 
quicquid morabimur. Deus enim ve- 
tustior est quam ulla consuetudo, et 
auctoritas Dei omnia vincit concilia.” 
—See Cone. iii. par. ii. de Sacram. Al- 
taris ; tom. i. fol. 329, B.] 





LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 325 


once that book was opposed and forbidden by the Bishop of 
the diocese of Meissen to be read, he studied the matter more 
fully, and set forth another book’, wherein he pleaded that 
the new council, which commanded one kind only, was re- 
pugnant to the old councils and practice of the Church of 
God; and that the pleasure and determination of such a 
council was but alight and a frivolous argument to be brought 
against others, who alleged for themselves Christ’s own in- 
stitution, and the public order of the Catholic Church from 
the Apostles’ times downwards, for the communicating under 
both kinds. 

In the year following, 1521, beimg called to the Diet of 
Worms by the Emperor Charles the Fifth, and there urged 
to revoke what he had said and written about rejecting the 
authority of councils in the Church, he gave his answer clearly 
after this manner‘: “ That he did not reject the authority of 
all, but of some councils only, and chiefly that of Constance ; 
which he had great reason to do, because that council had 
rejected the authority of Christ, and condemned the true 
doctrine and order of His Church: for which cause he was 
ready rather to lose his life, than to depart from the manifest 
verity of the Word of God.” Whereupon, (and even for this 
cause among others, that he had opposed the council of Con- 
stance for commanding the communion of the people under 
one kind,) he was proscribed, and banished the Emperor’s 
dominions. But the Elector of Saxony protected him, and 
he got safe again to the University of Wittenberg. 


5 [See Luther’s Respons. ad Schedu- 
lam Inhibitionis, sub nomine Episcopi 
Misnensis editam, super Sermone de 
Sacram. Euch., § Jam vero.—Op., tom. 
i. fol. 462, B.—Melior est obedientia 
quam victima. Ex quo pro admiranda 
dialectica sua concludunt novissimo 
concilio esse obediendum.... Si enim 
aliquando Bohemi hanc_ scripturam 
fortius contra nos torqueant, profitentes 
se obedire, et arguentes nos non obedire 
Evangelio, in quo utraque species a 
Christo instituitur et ecclesiastico usu 
durissime roboratur, &c.—See also 
prefat. ad Lectorem, fol. 460, B.— 
Que ego... .in auctoritatem concilii 
generalis reposui, deinde ea ipsa quo- 
que sint de expresso textu sacri Evan- 
gelii et longo Ecclesiarum totius orbis 
usu receptissima, Xe. ] 


t [See Acta D. Mart. Lutheri Wor- 
matiz habita, ὃ Concil. Constantiens. 
—Op., tom. 11, fol. 415, A.—Deinde 
libere pronuntiat se non omnia concilia 
reprehendisse, sed tantum Constanti- 
ense, ob hoc potissimum, quod verbum 
Dei damnavit. Quod patet in articulo 
hoe Johannis Huss, ibi damnato, ‘ Ec- 
clesia Christi est et universitas prredes- 
tinatorum.’ Hune articulum damnasse 
concilium Constantiense, certum est; 
et sic consequenter hune articulum 
Fidei nostre, ‘Credo Ecclesiam Sanc- 
tam Catholicam.’ Aiebat igitur se non 
recusare et vitam et sanguinem im- 
pendere, modo eo non detrudatur, ut 
cogatur apertum Dei Verbum revo- 
care: nam in hoc defendendo oportere 
Deo magis quam hominibus obedire. ] 


990 LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 


From whence, in the next year, he wrote to the Churches 
in Bohemia, confirming them in their duty, and exhorting" 
them to continue their order, against all opposition, of giving 
the cup to the people. 

And all this he did two years before he left off his Friar’s 
habit, or altered the order of the mass. 

Afterwards, in the year 1529, at the colloquy of Marpurg, 
with many other learned men, he subscribed this article*: 
“ Concerning the Supper of the Lord, we believe and main- 
tain, that, according to His institution, it ought to be given 
in both kinds.” 

The next year following, at the great Diet of Augsburg, 
where all the protestant Princes of Germany exhibited to the 
Emperor the Confession of their Churches, penned by Luther 
and Melancthon, and called the Augustan Confession, among 
other articles, this was one subscribed by them all’: “The 
Sacrament is delivered with us in both kinds to the people. 
For so our Lord commanded it, 5. Matth. xxvi. ‘Drink ye 
ALL of this.” .... And, lest any should cavil and say, that this 
precept was for Priests only, it is evident by S. Paul that it 
belonged to the whole Church, 1 Cor. xi. And so it con- 
tinued for many ages, till of late it was altered by a new 


ἃ (See Luther’s Epist. de Institu- 
endis Ministris Ecclesiz, ad Senatum 
Pragensem Bohemiz, tom. ii. fol. 545, 
et seq. | 

= [ Luther’s Latin Works contain no 
account of this colloquy. But see Hos- 
pinian’s Hist. Sacram., ann. 1529, § 
Articuli, de quibus utrinque consensum 
est, art. xv.; par. ii. fol. 78, A.—Cre- 
dimus et sentimus omnes de Coena Do- 
mini nostri Jesu Christi, quod utraque 
specie juxta institutionem utendum sit; 
&c. — Conf. Seckendorf, Comment. 
Hist. de Lutheranismo, lib. ii. sect. 17, 
ed. Francof. 1692, p. 138.] 

y [See Confess. Fidei, Carolo V. 
Imp. exibit. in Comitiis Auguste, 
A.D. 1530, art. De utraque specie.— 
Op., tom. iv. fol. 198, B.—Laicis datur 
utraque species sacramenti in Ccena 
Domini; quia hic mos habet manda- 
tum Domini, Matth. xxvi. ‘ Bibite ex 
hoe omnes:’ ubi manifeste przcepit 
Christus de poculo, ut omnes bibant. 
Et, ne quis possit cavillari, quod hoe 
ad Sacerdotes tantum pertineant, Pau- 
lus ad Corinth. exemplum recitat, in 


quo apparet totam Ecclesiam utraque 
specie usam esse. Et diu mansit hic 
mos in Ecclesia; nec constat quando 
aut quo auctore mutatus sit. Cypria- 
nus aliquot locis testatur populo San- 
guinem datum esse. Idem testatur 
Hieronymus, qui ait, ‘Sacerdotes Eu- 
charistiz ministrant, et Sanguinem 
Christi populis dividunt.’ _ Immo Gela- 
sius Papa mandat, ne dividatur Sacra- 
mentum, Dist. ii. de Consecratione, 
cap. Comperimus. Tantum consuetudo 
non ita vetus aliud habet. Constat 
autem quod consuetudo contra man- 
data Dei introducta non sit probanda: 
ut testantur canones, Dist. viii. cap. 
Veritate, cum sequentibus. Hee vero 
consuetudo non solum contra Scrip- 
turam, sed etiam contra veteres canones 
et exemplum Ecclesie recepta est. 
Quare, si qui maluerunt utraque specie 
sacramenti uti, non fuerunt cogendi ut 
aliter facerent cum offensione conscien- 
tiz. Et, quia divisio Sacramenti non 
convenit cum institutione Christi, solet 
apud nos omitti processio, que hacte- 
nus fieri solita est. | 


LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 327 


custom, which, being brought in against the commandment 
of God, ought not (as the canons of the Church bear us wit- 
ness) to be approved. .... For it was a custom introduced, not 
only against the Scriptures, but likewise against the ancient 
laws and examples of the Catholics. ... 8. Cyprian saith to 
Pope Cornelius : ‘ How can we animate the people to shed 
their blood for Christ, if we shall deny them Christ’s Blood ? 
or how can we fit them for the cup of martyrdom, if we do 
not first admit them to the cup of our Lord, whereof it is their 
right to communicate in the Church.” And Gelasius saith : 
‘Let them take both or none; for the taking away of one 
part in the Sacrament is a very great sacrilege.’ ” 

Quest.—And, whereas it is alleged, that, “in the Confer- 
ence at Augsburg, it was agreed by both parties (the Roman 
Catholics and the Protestants) that it would be sufficient to 
communicate under the accidents either of Bread or Wine.” 

Answ.—This is so far from truth, that the records of that 
conference shew the contrary, and say’, the parties agreed 
not at all about the matter of the Lord’s Supper. 

But, for a full and final declaration of Luther’s judgment 
herein, he wrote the Articles of Smalcald in the year 1537, 
whereof the sixth is as followeth*: “ Concerning the Sacra- 
ment of the Altar, we firmly hold, that in the Lord’s Supper 
the bread and wine is the Body and Blood of Christ with- 
out transubstantiation ; and that it is not to be given in one 
kind alone: for we need none of the sophistical learning to 
be taught, there is as much under one kind as under both, 
as the sophisters and the council of Constance would teach 


z [See Luther’s judgment, de Arti- concilium Constantiense docent. Etsi 


culis ad abusus spectantibus, &c., as 
quoted out of Coelestinus, p. 319, note 
h.—-In hoe articulo nihil adversariis 
concedere et largiri possumus; &c.]} 

a [See Art. Smaleald., par. iii. art. 
vi. De Sacram. Altaris, ap. Libr. Sym- 
bolic., ed. Lips. 1827, p. 253.— De 
Sacramento Altaris sentimus panem 
et vinum in Ccena esse verum Corpus 
et Sanguinem Christi, et non tantum 
dari et sumi a piis, sed etiam ab impiis 
Christianis. Et non tantum unam 
speciem esse dandam. Non enim in- 
digemus doxosophia ista, que nos do- 
ceat sub una specie tantum esse quan- 
tum sub utraque, sicut sophiste et 


enim verum esse forte possit, quod sub 
una tantum sit quantum sub utraque, 
tamen una species non est tota ordina- 
tio et institutio per Christum facta, 
tradita, et mandata. Imprimis vero 
damnamus et execramur in nomine 
Domini omnes eos, qui non tantum 
utramque speciem omittunt, verum 
etiam tyrannice eam prohibent, dam- 
nant, et blasphemant, ut heresin, et 
ita se ipsos supra et contra Christum 
Dominum et Deum nostrum extollunt, 
opponentes et preponentes se Christo, 
&c.—Conf. Articul., qui dicuntur Smal- 
caldic., e Palatino codice MS. Germa- 
nice edit., Berolini, 1817, p. 77.] 


828 LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 


us: for, though it may peradventure be true that under one 
kind whole Christ is there, yet it is not true that under one 
kind the whole ordinance of Christ is there : which ordinance 
He made for both kinds. And, as He delivered it, so He 
commanded us to follow it. But above all we condemn, 
and in the name of our Lord we execrate, all those that do 
not only omit the giving of the cup, but do tyrannically also 
forbid it to be given, slandering and damning all others for 
heretics, that use it; and thereby both exalting themselves 
above Christ, and opposing their own power against His, who 
is Lord over us all.” 

In the profession of which truth Luther continued to his 
death. 

All which is abundantly enough to free him from the erro- 
neous and uncatholic doctrine, that this letter would put 
upon him. For, if at any time he said, that men did not sin 
in communicating under one kind, he did it either before he 
was sufficiently informed, (being then more than half a papist, ) 
or he did it to excuse their simplicity and ignorance, that 
were violently led along with the evil custom of their times, 
before’ there was any decree made at Constance against 
Christ’s precept. But he did it not either to approve or to 
excuse® their unsufferable presumption and boldness, that 
forbid us by a law of their own making to keep the law and 
commandment of our Saviour, as the Romanists do at this 
day : and by that law hold, that they may accurse and burn. 
us for damned heretics, if we hold it necessary to obey the 


b [For the scruples of those of his 
own time, however, Luther appears to 
have had less consideration.—See Serm. 
iii. de Confessione et Sacramento Eu- 
charistie, A.D. 1519, par. ii. de Sa- 
cram. Altaris, § Porro. — Op., tom. i. 
fol. 325, B.—Porro, adeo sepe hee a 
nobis tractata causa est, ut putem jam 
omnibus planum esse, quare utranque 
speciem sumi postulemus. Quod si 
qui adeo sunt rudes, aut etiam sua in- 
firmitate adeo delectantur, ut intelligere 
hee nolint, illos sane nos non cura- 
mus; et multo satius quoque est, ut 
illi Sacramento prorsus abstineant. 
Malum enim argumentum est, tot an- 
nis audire Verbum Dei, et tamen per- 
petuo infirmum manere, et dicere quod 


non possit illa assequi; &c.] 

¢ [See Luther’s Apolog. Confess. 
Fid. August., ὃ De utraque specie; 
tom. iy. fol. 252, B.—Fingamus sane 
liberum esse uti una parte aut amba- 
bus: quomodo poterit prohibitio de- 
fendi? Quamquam Ecclesia non sumit 
sibi hance libertatem, ut ex ordinationi- 
bus Christi faciat res indifferentes. Nos 
quidem KEcclesiam excusamus, que 
hance injuriam pertulit, cum utraque 
pars ei contingere non posset: sed 
auctores, qui defendunt recte prohiberi 
usum integri Sacramenti, quique nunc 
non solum prohibent, sed etiam utentes 
integro Sacramento excommunicant et 
vi persequuntur, non excusamus. ] 


Tea ee 


=o 





LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 329 


law of Christ, or to follow the example both of His Apostles 
and the whole Catholic Church of God herein. 


3. Hospinian. 


Quest.—The letter saith, that “with Luther agrees Hospi- 
nian, a famous Lutheran.” 

Answ.—It is as true that Hospinian was of this mind, to 
agree with any man for the lawfulness of communicating 
under one kind, as that he was a Lutheran: for mdeed 
neither of these two assertions are true“. 


4. Calvin. 


Quest.—“ Finally, John Calvin upon the sixth of S. John 
confesseth, that the Bohemians cannot convince the necessity 
of the cup by the words of the Lord, ‘ Except ye eat the Flesh 
of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in 
you.” 

Answ.—First, It was Calvin’s opinion, that this place of 
S. John was “not® to be understood of the Sacrament.” But 
it was not his opinion, that the Bohemians had no Scripture 
for the necessity of the cup; for he says there, they have a 
better and a clearer place than this in the 26th of S. Matth., 
“where Christ’s institution’ makes the one kind as necessary 
as the other, commanding us aut to drink of the cup.” 

2. Besides, Calvin there “confesseth’, that this place of 

-§. John hath nothing in it, but what had relation to the Sa- 
crament, and was afterwards truly set forth in it :’—wherein 


4 [See Hospiniani Tigurini Hist. quam nondum instituerat: ideo de per- 
Sacram., par. ii, fol. 12, B, as cited p. petua fidei manducatione eum trac- 
320, not. k.] tare certum est. } 

e [Comm. in S. Joh. vi. 54.—Op., f (Ibid., in v. 53.—Institutio calicem 
tom. xi. p. 65.—Ex his verbis palam ap- omnibus una cum pane communem 
paret, perperam de σπᾷ exponi totum facit; mandat enim ut inde bibamus 
hune locum: nam, siverum esset, qui- omnes. } 
cunque ad sacram Domini Mensam se g (Ibid, in v. 54—Simul tamen 
ingerunt, Carnis et Sanguinis Ejus fieri_fateor, nihil hic dici quod non in Cena 
participes, omnes similiter vitam refer- figuretur, ac vere prestetur fidelibus: 
rent: scimus autem multis in exitium adeoque sacram Coenam Christus quasi 
cedere. Et certe ineptum fuisset ac hujus conscionis sigillum esse voluit. ] 
intempestivum de Ccena tunc disserere, 


990 LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND 


he did better than some of the Roman Catholic writers have 
done, (Cajetan®, the cardinal, Jansenius', a bishop, and Tap- 
per*, Bellarmine’s master,) who will not have that place so 
understood, or refer to the Sacrament at all. And their rea- 
son is, for that they would not help the Bohemians and the 
protestants to so strong and undeniable an argument: be- 
cause, if Christ spake there of His Sacrament, it must of 
necessity follow, by an unavoidable consequence, that the 
receiving under both kinds is necessary to salvation. 

3. But the truth is, that Calvin, in denying this place of 
S. John to be understood of the Sacrament, was more afraid 
than hurt. They (these Roman Catholics) were not so. And 
therefore we follow neither him nor them in it. For it is a 
peculiar and a private interpretation of their own, against the 
common and public known mind of all the ancient Fathers, 
who (without excepting any of them, that had occasion to 
treat of that place,) have understood it of the Sacrament. 
And the general consent of the Fathers in the interpretation 
of Scripture, for matters needful to be religiously believed 


h [Thom. de Vio Cajetan., in S. 
John vi. 54.—Comment. in Script. 
Sacr., ed. Lugd. 1639, tom. iv. p. 333. 
—Tertius itaque sensus est de mandu- 
catione sacramentali, digne tamen.... 
Ita- quod juxta hune sensum necessa- 
rium est ad solutem non solum Sacra- 
mentum Baptismi, sed etiam Sacra- 
mentum Eucharistie sub  utraque 
specie. Ex hoc sensu orta paulo ante 
est secta Bohemorum communicantium 
etiam infantes sub utraque specie. 
Huic sensui contrariatur Ecclesiz con- 
suetudo, &c.—Item, v. 55, p. 334,— 
Clare igitur apparet, quod non est ad 
literam sermo de manducare et bibere 
sacramentum Eucharistiz, sed de man- 
ducare et bibere mortem Jesu. 1 

i [See Cornelii Jansenii Comm. in 
suam Concordiam Evangelicam, cap. 
lix. § Dixit ergo; ed Lugd. 1597, pp. 
456, 457.— Secundo ergo in bonum 
manducare Carnem Domini, et bibere 
Ejus Sanguinem, est hac sumere in 
Sacramento Eucharistie, in quo vere 
continetur Caro et Sanguis Ejus sub 
speciebus panis et vini; &c...... Sed 
alia ratione heretici quidem student 
hune locum ostendere intelligendum 
esse de manducatione sacramentali, alia 
ratione quidam Catholici. Bohemi 


enim ob illud contendunt, quia hine 
volunt demonstrare Eucharistiam ne- 
cessario sumendam esse sub utraque 
specie; &c. ..... Verum, quod non 
debeat locus iste intelligi secundum 
precipuam Domini intentionem de 
manducatione sacramentali, primum 
ex eo apparet, quod prius dictum est, 
ex verbis Domini superioribus, omnino 
videri idem esse manducare Se, et cre- 
dere in Se; secundo, ex eo quod, si de 
ea intelligatur, sententiz sequentes non 
erunt universaliter vere: ‘Qui man- 
ducat,’ &c.—See also § Et panis, p. 
455. | 

k [See Ruard. Tapper, de Communi- 
one sub utraque specie, art. xv.—Op., 
Colon. Agrip. 1582, p. 220.—Et cap. 
Joan. vi. (Lutherus) dicit nec syllabam 
quidem de sacramento loqui, Xe..... 
De quo postea sumus locuturi. ... (p. 
222.) Item Cyrillus, Chrysostomus, 
et doctores alii, cap. Joan. vi. de bibendo 
Sanguine Christi referunt ad sacram 
Eucharistiam. Non igitur dici potest 
jure Evangelico, quod pronuntiat Pau- 
lus Apostolus prohibitum esse laicis 
communicare sub specie vini, &c. . 
Oportet itaque hujus sententiz com- 
modum invenire sensum; &c.—Conf. 
p. 227.] 


See 


LETTERS ABOUT COMMUNICATING IN ONE KIND. 901 


and held, is our rule to follow, prescribed us by the canons 
of our own Church of England. 

4. By the confession therefore of those Roman Catholics, 
who are not herein of these Fathers’ mind, it must unavoid- 
ably follow, that all the ancient Fathers were of our mind, 
and are of our religion, for the necessity of receiving one 
kind as well as the other. For they held it for a necessary 
and Catholic doctrine, and so do we, that, in the Sacrament, 
unless all persons (that are capable of it) do ‘ eat the Flesh of 
the Son of Man and drink His Blood,’ (that is, unless they 
do their duty, and communicate under both kinds,) ‘ they 
have no life in them.’ And so is this letter fully answered. 


[Jo. Cosrn.] 


A PAPER? CONCERNING THE DIFFERENCES IN 
THE CHIEF POINTS OF RELIGION BETWIXT 
THE CHURCH OF ROME AND THE CHURCH OF 
ENGLAND, WRITTEN TO THE LATE COUNTESS 
OF PETERBOROUGH®, BY DR. JOHN COSIN, 
AFTERWARDS LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM. 


Tue differences, in the chief poimts of religion, between 
the Roman Catholics and us of the Church of England; 
together with the agreements, which we for our parts profess, 
and are ready to embrace, if they for theirs were as ready to 
accord with us in the same. 


THE DIFFERENCES. 


We that profess the Catholic Faith and Religion in the 
Church of England do not agree with the Roman Catholics 
in any thing whereunto they now endeavour to convert us. 
But we totally differ from them (as they do from the ancient 
Catholic Church) in these points : 

1. That the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress 
of all other Churches in the world: 

δ 2. That the Pope of Rome is the vicar-general of Christ ; 
or that he hath an universal jurisdiction over all Christians 
that shall be saved : 


ἃ [This paper was first printed in the Corruptions of the Church of Rome, 


an octavo volume bearing the title, 
‘*Several Letters, which passed be- 
tween Dr. George Hickes and a Po- 
pish Priest, upon occasion of a young 
gentleman’s departing from the Church 
of England to that of Rome;”’ with an 
appendix of papers, &c., Lond. 1705.— 
Appendix, Paper iv.—In his preface, 
Hickes says this paper “ was never be- 
fore published. I printed it,’’ he adds, 
*‘from the very copy, which Dr. John 
Cosin, afterwards Bishop of Durham, 
gave to the late Countess of Peter- 
borough.’’—It has since been printed 
at the end of Bishop Bull’s account of 


&c., Lond. 1705. ] 

> [scil. Penelope, dauzhter of Bar- 
nabas, Earl of Thomond, and wife of 
Henry, second Earl of Peterborough, 
who distinguished himself in the civil 
wars of Charles I., and was engaged 
with the Earl of Holland, in 1648, in 
attempting to rescue the King from his 
imprisonment, &c. The Countess ap- 
pears to have died in April, 1782, (i.e. 
three years before this paper was first 
published by Hickes.)—See Collins’s 
Peerage of England, ed. Lond. 1812, 
vol. ili, p. 318.] 





DIFFERENCES IN RELIGION, &c. 333 


/ 


3. That either the synod of Trent was a general council, 
or that all the canons thereof are to be received as matters 
of Catholic Faith under pain of damnation : 

4. That Christ hath instituted seven true and proper 
Sacraments in the New Testament, neither more nor less, 
all conferring grace, and all necessary to salvation : 

5. That the Priests offer up our Saviour in the mass, 
as a real, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and 
the dead; and that whosoever believes it not is eternally 
damned : 

6. That, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole sub- 
stance of bread is converted into the substance of Christ’s 
Body, and the whole substance of wine into His Blood, so 
truly and properly, as that after consecration there is neither 
any bread nor wine remaining there; which they call tran- 
substantiation, and impose upon all persons under pain of 
damnation to be believed: 

7. That the communion under one kind is sufficient and 
lawful, (notwithstanding the institution of Christ under both ;) 
and that whosoever believes or holds otherwise is damned : 

8. That there is a purgatory after this life, wherein the 
souls of the dead are punished, and from whence they are 
fetched out by the prayers and offerings of the living; and 
that there is no salvation possibly to be had by any that 
will not believe as much: 

9. That all the old saints departed, and all those dead 
men and women, whom the Pope hath of late canonized for 
saints, or shall hereafter do so, whosoever they be, are and 

ought to be invocated by the religious prayers and devotions 
of all persons ; and that they who do not believe this as an 
article of their Catholic Faith cannot be saved : 

10. That the relics of all these true or reputed saints 
ought to be religiously worshipped; and that whosoever 
holdeth the contrary is damned: 

11. That the images of Christ, and the blessed Virgin, 
and of the other saints, ought not only to be had and re- 
tained, but likewise to be honoured and worshipped, accord- 
ing to the use and practices of the Roman Church; and that 
this is to be believed as of necessity to salvation : 

12. That the power and use of indulgences, as they are 


334 DIFFERENCES IN RELIGION 


now practised in the Church of Rome, both for the living 
and the dead, is to be received and held of all, under pain of 
eternal perdition : 

13. That all the ceremonies used by the Roman Church in 
the administration of the Sacraments, (such as are spittle and 
salt at Baptism, the five crosses upon the Altar and Sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist, the holding of that Sacrament over 
the Priest’s head to be adored, the exposing of it in their 
churches to be worshipped by the people, the circumgestation 
and carrying of it abroad in procession upon their Corpus 
Christi day, and to their sick for the same, the oil and chrism 
in confirmation, the anointing of the ears, the eyes, and 
noses, the hands, and reins, of those that are ready to die, 
the giving of an empty chalice and paten to them that are to 
be ordained Priests, and many others of this nature now in 
use with them,) are of necessity to salvation, to be approved 
and admitted by all other churches: , 

14. That all the ecclesiastical observations and constitu- 
tions of the same Church, (such as are their laws of forbid- 
ding all Priests to marry, the appointing several orders of 
monks, friars, and nuns, in the Church, the service of God 
in an unknown tongue, the saying of a number of Ave-Marias 
by tale upon their chaplets, the sprinkling of themselves and 
the dead bodies with holy water, as operative and effectual 
to the remission of venial sins, the distinctions of meats to be 
held for true fasting, the religious consecration and incens- 
ing of images, the baptizing of bells, the dedicating of divers 
holidays for the immaculate conception and the bodily as- 
sumption of the blessed Virgin, and for Corpus Christi or 
transubstantiation of the Sacrament, the making of the Apo- 
cryphal books to be as canonical as any of the rest of the 
holy and undoubted Scriptures, the keeping of those Serip- 
tures from the free use and reading of the people, the approv- 
ing of their own Latin translation only, and divers other 
matters of the like nature,) are to be approved, held, and be- 
lieved, as needful to salvation; and that whoever approves 
them not is out of the Catholic Church, and must be damned : 

All which, in their several respects, we hold, some to be 
pernicious, some unnecessary, many false, and many fond, 
and none of them to be imposed upon any Church, or any 





᾿ 


BETWEEN ENGLAND AND ROME. 335 


Christian, as the Roman Catholics do upon all Christians 
and all Churches whatsoever, for matters needful to be ap- 
- proved for eternal salvation. 


OUR AGREEMENTS. 


Tr the Roman Catholics would make the essence of their 
Church (as we do ours) to consist in these following points, 
we are at accord with them in the reception and believing οὔ: 

1. All the two and twenty canonical books of the Old 
Testament, and the twenty-seven of the New, as the only 
foundation and perfect rule of our faith : 

2. All the apostolical and ancient Creeds, especially those 
which are commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene 
Creed, and the Creed of 8. Athanasius; all which are clearly 
deduced out of the Scriptures: 

8. All the Decrees of faith and doctrine set forth, as well 
in the first four general councils, as in all other councils, 
which those first four approved and confirmed, and in the 
fifth and sixth general councils besides, (than which we find 
no more to be general,) and in all the following councils that 
be thereunto agreeable, and in all the anathemas and con- 
demnations given out by those councils against heretics, for 
the defence of the Catholic Faith: 

4. The unanimous and general consent of the ancient 
Catholic Fathers and the universal Church of Christ in the 
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and the collection of 
all necessary matters of Faith from them during the first six 
hundred years, and downwards to our own days: 

5. In acknowledgment of the Bishop of Rome, if he would 
rule and be ruled by the ancient canons of the Church, to 
be the Patriarch of the West, by right of ecclesiastical and 
imperial constitution, in such places where the kings and 
governors of those places had received him, and found it be- 
hooveful for them to make use of his jurisdiction, without 
any necessary dependence upon him by divine right : 

6. In the reception and use of the two blessed Sacraments 
of our Saviour; in the confirmation of those persons that are 
to be strengthened in their Christian Faith, by prayer and 


336 DIFFERENCES IN RELIGION, &c. 


imposition of hands, according to the examples of the holy 
Apostles and ancient Bishops of the Catholic Church; in the 
public and solemn benediction of persons that are to be joined 
together in holy matrimony; in public or private absolution 
of penitent sinners; in the consecrating of Bishops, and the 
ordaining of Priests and Deacons, for the service of God in 
His Church by a lawful succession ; and in visiting the sick, 
by praying for them, and administering the blessed Sacra- 
ment to them, together with a final absolution of them from 
their repented sins: 

7. In commemorating at the Eucharist the Sacrifice of 
Christ’s Body and Blood once truly offered for us : 

8. In acknowledging His sacramental, spiritual, true, and 
real Presence there to the souls of all them that come faith- 
fully and devoutly to receive Him according to His own in- 
stitution in that holy Sacrament : 

9. In giving thanks to God for them that are departed 
out of this life m the true Faith of Christ’s Catholic Church ; 
and in praying to God, that they may have a joyful resurrec- 
tion, and a perfect consummation of bliss, both in their bodies 
and souls, in His eternal kingdom of glory : 

10. In the historical and moderate use of painted and true 
stories, either for memory or ornament, where there is no 
danger to have them abused or worshipped with religious 
honour : 

11. In the use of indulgences, or abating the rigour of the 
canons imposed upon offenders, according to their repent- 
ance, and their want of ability to undergo them : 

12. In the administration of the two Sacraments, and other 
rites of the Church, with ceremonies of decency and order, 
according to the precept of the Apostle, and the free practice 
of the ancient Christians : 

13. In observing such holy days, and times of fasting, as 
were in use in the first ages of the Church, or afterwards 
received upon just grounds, by public or lawful authority : 

14. Finally, in the reception of all ecclesiastical constitu- 
tions and canons made for the ordering of our Church; or 
others which are not repugnant either to the Word of God, 
or the power of kings, or the laws established by right au- 
thority in any nation. 











THE STATE OF US WHO ADHERE ΤῸ THE 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND *. 


THE ROMAN CATHOLICS; 


1. Say and believe (as by 
the articles of their new creed 
they are bound to believe) 
that we are all damned, and 
accursed persons. 


2. They call us heretics. 


3. They excommunicate us, 
and abhor to join with us in 
any sacred action either of 
prayer or sacraments. 


4. Not long since, they 
burned us (both alive and 
dead) at their stakes; and, 
where the edicts of princes 
restrain them not, they do so 
still, as by their own laws 
they have obliged themselves 
to do; which laws (if civil re- 
spects suspend them not for 
the time) they can put in 
execution at an hour’s warn- 
ing, when they please. 


5. They will allow us no 


THE REFORMED CHURCHES: 


1. Say and believe (as we 
do) that we profess and be- 
lieve whatsoever is necessary 
to salvation; and that it is 
an accursed belief which the 
Roman Catholics have of us. 

2. These acknowledge us 
to be true Catholics. 

3. They do most willingly 
receive us into their churches, 
and frequently repair to ours, 
joining with us both in prayers 
and sacraments. 

4. These men, (whose pre- 
decessors were burned up and 
martyred, as ours have been,) 
being in such times of per- 
secution received and _ har- 
boured in our Churches, gave 
us the like relief in theirs, 
both in Germany and France; 
where, when at any time we 
come, they have obtained 
freedom for us from this kind 
of persecution, under which 
we might otherwise suffer and 
be in continual danger to lose 
our lives. 

5. They allow us, not only 


* [This paper is printed in the Appendix to Basire’s ‘‘ Dead Man’s Real 


Speech.”’ ] 
COSIN. 


338 


THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. 


other burial of our dead, 
than the burial of a dog; 
accounting their churches 
and their churchyards to be 
polluted, if any of our people 
be there put into a grave; 
and whoever it is among them, 
(be it a son that shall bury 
his father, or a wife her hus- 
band, that die in our religion,) 
if they venture to make a 
grave there, and put the dead 
corpse either of a father, or 
a husband, or other the lke 
into it, they are bound to 
scrape up that corpse again 
with their own fingers, and 
carry it away to be buried in 
a ditch, or a dunghill, or where 
else they can find room for it : 
prince or peasant are herein 
alike: if they be not Roman 
Catholics, they shall be used 
no better. 


THE STATE OF US IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 


THE REFORMED CHURCHES. 


to bury our dead among theirs 
in the churchyards which 
they have purchased and 
peculiarly set apart for that 
purpose, but they give us 
leave also to use our own 
Office and Order of Burial, 
(at least they hinder us not 
to do it, if the Roman Catho- 
lics permit it,) and to set up 
our monuments and inscrip- 
tions over the graves, hereby 
professing unity with us both 
alive and dead. 

In all which regards we 
ought no less to acknow- 
ledge them, and to make 
no schism between our 
Churches and theirs, how- 
ever we approve not some 
defects that may be seen 
among them. 


This remains written by the Bishop’s own hand when he 


was in France. 


[Note at the end of this paper in Basire. | 





fe GN. OI 


ANGLLAE 


RELIGIO 


CATHOLICA, 


Prifea, cafta, defcecata: 


Omnibus Chriftianis Monarchis, 


Principibus, Ordinibus oftenfa. 


Anno MDCLII. 


Auctore JoHANNE Cosrno’%, tunc temporis 


Ecclefize Cathedralis Petroburgenf/is Decano, & 


poftea Dunelmi Epifcopo. 


* [In Smithii MS. CX., Bibl. Bod- 
leian. reposit., sub Regni Angliz Relig. 
codicis initium, chartula scripta hee 
legitur nota: 

“ Auctore Joanne Cosino, tune tem- 
poris Decano Petroburgensi, postea 
Episcopo Dunelmensi, qui rogatu il- 
lustrissimi viri, D. Edvardi Hyde, Can- 


cellarii Angliz, et postea Comitis Cla- 
rendoniensis, hunc tractatulum Parisiis 
scripsit cirea annum 1652. 

Ex autographo, quod apud illus- 
trissimum virum D. Henricum Comi- 
tem Clarendoniensem extat, exscripsi. 


Pec 


z2 





REGNI 


ANGLIA RELIGIO 


ΘΟ ΤΉ ΘΙ ΕΘ: 


PRISCA, CASTA*, DEFECATA. 


CAPUT I. 
PERPETUA RELIGIONIS NORMA’. 


Perretua nobis in Ecclesid Anglicand Religionis et Fidei 
nostre norma hec est: 

Unus Canon, a Deo in duo Testamenta relatus. 

In iis, enim, que aperte in S. Scriptura posita sunt, con- 
tinentur' illa omnia, qu fidem spectant’, moresque vivendi. ! [“inve- 


Post illa, Instrumenta nobis authentica sunt μετ Wes 
Tria Symbola, kett.] 
3 [ conti- 


Quatuor priora Concilia, Beis 
Quinque secula, et Catholicorum Patrum per ea series Wek.] 
ac consensus. 

In his, enim, invenitur? et explicatur Fides illa prima $[*‘‘conti- 
Sanctis semel tradita, © prisca, casta, et defeecata, absque ho- Wek] 
minum corruptelis et assumentis novis. 

Ea denique, qu in sequioribus szculis huic prime non 
repugnat, Theologia. 


, 


nostre Norma:’ 


® (Conf. ‘Regni Angliew sub imperio 
Serenissime, Piz, et Potentissime 
Regine Elizabethe Relig. et Guber- 
nat. Eccles.,’ Lond. 1729, cura et stu- 
diis Gulielmi Wekett; ubi deest hoc 
vocabulum. } 

> [Hujus capituli in edit. Wek. est 
titulus: “ Perpetua Religionis et Fidei 


et incipit cap. i. his 
verbis: ‘ Unus nobis eanon a Deo 
in scripta relatus duo Testamenta. In 
iis enim,’’ &c. ] 

* [Explicit hoc caput in ed. Gul. 
Wek. his que sequuntur verbis: ... 
“vera, catholica, absque Romane as- 
sumento novo.” ] 


942 DE ECCLESI® ANGLICAN 


CAPUT EE 
SACRA DEI SCRIPTURA. 


Recipimus et amplectimur omnes Canonicas Scripturas, 
tum Veteris, tum Novi Testamenti. 

Quas semper ante oculos habemus, ne vel humana fraude, 
vel insidiis demonum, ad errores et fabulas abduceremur. 

In illis solis posse hominum animos acquiescere; in 115 
omnia, que sunt ad salutem necessaria, inveniri; eas esse 
fundamenta Prophetarum et Apostolorum, in quibus edificata 
est Ecclesia Dei; normamque certissimam, ad quam omnis 
doctrina Ecclesiastica debeat revocari; et contra quam nec 
legem, nec traditionem, nec consuetudinem ullam? sequen- 
dam vel audiendam esse; profitemur et firma fide credimus. 


CAPUT 11. 


ANTIQUA FIDEI SYMBOLA. 


Ea Fides nostra et Doctrina est, quam complectitur 
Symbolum Apostolicum, 
Symbolum Niczenum, 
Symbolum Constantinopolitanum, 
Symbolum Athanasianum ; 
Confessio Ephesina, et 
Confessio Chalcedonensis. 

Que omnia firmissimis 8. Scripture testimonius compro- 
bari possunt. 

Ista autem Symbola non modo continent que credere 
Christianum hominem oportet, sed omnibus etiam eandem 
ὑποτύπωσιν ὑγιαινόντων λόγων prescribunt. 

Novum igitur fidei Romane symbolum, quod nec in 
S. Scriptura legitur, neque inde per ullam evidentem aut 
solidam consequentiam probari possit®, quin‘ et ab ea prorsus 


* [Deest hee vox in ed. Wek. ] proxima que sequuntur verba sic le- 
* [In MS. Bar]. hoc posteriori manu guntur: ... ‘‘totique antiquitati pe- 
emendatum legitur vocabulum “ po-  nitus erat incognitum, ut non a quovis 
test.” ] exigendum docemus, ita a nobis pror- 


* [In editione Gulielmi Wekett, sus rejicimus.’’ ] 





RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS. 343 


alienum est, totique Antiquitati penitus incognitum, procul a 
nobis amandayvimus. 

Neque enim verum est, (imo a veritate et verbo Dei quam 
maxime abhorret',) fidem sive Tridentinam, sive Lateranam, Ὁ [« alie- 
esse Catholicam, aut extra nuperam professionis fidei for- ""™ °*” 


4 ; τὰ : . —Wek. } 
mulam, a Papa Pio IV. et Tridentinis excogitatam’, neminem *Taut “ex- 
posse esse salyum. is hane 

1aqem. -— 
Wek. ] 
CAPUI BY. 


QUATUOR PRIMA CONCILIA. 


Maenam in Ecclesia et saluberrimam Conciliorum auc- 
toritatem esse dicimus, sed eorum, que a Catholicis, doc- 
tis, et puis viris celebrata sunt, queeque a sand et infallibili 
S. Scripturarum doctrind nullatenus recedere aut deviare 
perhibentur?. ὁ [Poste- 


: Sad Β . ΤΊΟΥΪ manu 
Qualia sunt vetera Concilia, que sancta et Universalis « γερουῖ- 


untur.”’— 
oo i ae © Barl.MS.] 
1118 approbata, queeque 115 postea fuere consona. Ea enim ¢ppoc, 


omnia unice amplectimur, atque in tantum venerati sumus, cipit δὺς 
quod® (quoad substantiam quidem dogmatum) etiam legum MsS.Barl.] 
illis vim in publicis regni comitiis? conciliandam curavimus : * [Post. 
adeo ut nemini apud nos liceat eis publice® contradicere. eat — 
Reliqua vero, que sequioribus swculis a Pontificiis habita Psr:!S-J 
sunt Concilia, et vel contempto vel pretermisso verbo Dei Cees? 
celebrata, (quibusque illi maxime nunc nituntur,) nos missa 5.5: Barl., 
facimus. Sicut enim Ccumenica ea non fuisse certo scimus", Wek.] 
ita in multis non minimi momenti decretis, tum a doctrind 
Apostolorum, tum a regulis sanctorum Patrum, aberrisse 
nimis manifestum est. 
Porro, summum Concilii cujusvis Preesidem, alium quam 


Christum, quzrere aut agnoscere, nefas ducimus. In C%cu- 


Keclesia recepit*, quatuor illa prima Gicumenica, et que ab 


e [Vid. 1 Eliz. c. i. § 86, et c.ii., et rum, aut regulas sanctorum Patrum, 
13 Eliz. ο. xii., &e.] secuta ; ita illos in nomine Christi con- 

» [His que sequuntur verbis expli- gregatos (qui jam tum Pape facti sunt 
cit hac sententia in ed. Wek....‘‘sci-  mancipia) haud facile credimus.”’ ] 
mus, neque aut doctrinam apostolo- 


Bari: 
MS. ] 


*[“ lique- 
αἱ." - 


Wek.] 


5 [“αὐἷ- 
les 
Wek. } 

4 [“histo- 
riam Ec- 
clesiz.’’— 
MS. Barl.] 
5 fess in- 
flamman- 


165." -- 


Μ5.Β411.} 


941 DE ECCLESIZ ANGLICANE 


menicis autem προστασίας papalis non usus magis quam jus 
olim penes Romanum fuit Pontificem, qui nec illis preefuit, nec 
interfuit, neque sué unquam auctoritate ea indicendi aut 
cogendi potestatem habuit, uti ex antiquissimorum Conci- 
liorum Actis, et Historia Ecclesiasticé, vel cuivis non prorsus 
excecato evidentissime liquet. 


CAPUT V. 


QUINQUE PRIORA PATRUM SECULA. 


Scripta sanctorum Patrum in mysteriis Fidei consenti- 
entium, (qualia multa recta et salubria nobis [per Dei gra- 
tiam'] reliquerunt,) tum ob sublimem illorum eruditionem et 
Spiritus Sancti gratiam, qué pre ceteris eos imbutos esse 
constat’, tum propter ipsorum pietatis ac veritatis testimo- 
nium, non solum atramento obsignatum, sed multorum quo- 
que sanguine sancitum, merito magnam apud nos existimati- 
onem et auctoritatem habent. 

Quo enim propius ab Apostolorum temporibus abfuerunt, 
tanto rectius veritatis doctrinam intellexisse, puriusque et in- 
corruptius explicuisse creduntur, presertim ubi unanimes 
sunt, et in rebus Fidei idem sentientes. 

Idcirco, quia testantur imprimis universi de origine et 
auctoritate S. Scripturze Canonicze, plurimi etiam utilissimos® 
sacrorum librorum Commentarios scripserunt, heereses suo- 
rum temporum strenue profligarunt, historiam* de Ecclesia 
Dei laudabili diligentii consignarunt, et nervosis sententiis 
studium pietatis inflammant®, ad frequentem eorum lectio- 
nem (non sine prudentié tamen et judicio exercendam) nos- 
tros omnes in sacris ordinibus constitutos, literisque imbutos, 
sedulo adhortamur. 

Quinetiam, ut toti simul orbi Christiano constaret, nos 
nullam in Anglié vel religionem fovere, vel fidem profiteri, 
nisi que vere Catholica, et communi priscorum Patrum con- 
sensu recepta, atque ex S. Scripturis firmata fuerit, hujus- 
modi decretum, vere quidem aureum, in Ecclesia nostra 


RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS. 910 


sancitum est, ac una cum Articulis religionis promulgatum, 
A.D. MDLXXI., cap. de Concionatoribus'. 

“Tmprimis videbunt, nequid unquam doceant,.... quod 
a populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consenta- 
neum sit doctrine Veteris ac Novi Testamenti, quodque ex 
ila ipsa doctrind Catholici Patres et veteris Ecclesize Episcopi 
collegerint*.” 

Nempe ita animati sumus, ut nec quidquam a quoquam 
credi cupimus, nisi de quo constet ex sacro Dei verbo in 
scriptis tradito, et quod consensu Apostolic primeveeque 
antiquitatis probari possit. 

Sacre igitur Scripture ita Traditionem subjungimus, ut 
hee illi semper subordinata sit, et per omnia congrua. 

Quod enim Apostoli viva voce predicarunt, hoc ipsum 
scriptis (que sud natura doctrine rerumque memoriz fideliter 
conservandze maxime sunt idonea) posteris suis! tradiderunt. ![Hoe vo- 
Et vicissim, que ad hunc modum ab illis tradita fuere, viri Soe 
Apostolici veterisque Ecclesiae Episcopi quotidie sermonibus ¢st in MS. 
et continuatd predicatione inculcabant, et praxi ipsa ae 
mebant ; ane adeo sincerum Christianismum, et? qua® doc- ? [Vox 
trinam, et qua’ ritus, et qua® mores, ad posteros propagarunt. oe eae 

Traditiones autem, de quibus neque Apostoli neque Epis- MS. Bar!.) 
copi ab Apostolis instituti, horumque successores proximi ne ᾿ ΠΝ δ 

quicquam testantur, nobis traditiones legitimee non sunt: et τὰ , legi- 
quod illi neque docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, Apostolicum ἘΝ oat 
aut Catholicum censeri non debet. MS.Barl.] 

Antiquitatis consensus patescit e Symbolis potissimum, et 

Confessionibus, quas prisca Ecclesia unanimiter in Conciliis 
-edidit, et ztas postera universim (qua late patet orbis Chris- 

tianus) recepit. Quicquid autem non unus aut alter tantum, 

sed omnes pariter uno ore eodemque consensu, aperte, fre- 
quenter, perseveranter tenuisse et docuisse cognov erimus, id 

nobis quoque pro indubitato ratoque habetur. Quicquid 

vero, quamvis ille [antiquus, quamvis‘] sanctus et doctus, « (Ms. 
(quamvis*) Episcopus, quamvis Confessor, aut Martyr, sibi mh ν 
extra Sacram Scripturam et consensum Ecclesiz arrogay erit, WS Berl) 
posterisve tradiderit, quod ipse a Patribus et Christi Aposto- 


i [Hic explicit cap. v. in edit. Wek.] 1571, pag. 19; ad calc. Artic. Fid. et 
κ [Vid. Libr. Quorundam Canonum _ Relig. A.D. 1562. ed. Lond. 1571.] 
Discipline Ecclesie Anglican, ann. 


946 DE ECCLESI& ANGLICAN 


1 [“rece- lis non recepit', id inter proprias occultasque et privatas 


perit.’’— 


MS.Barl.] OPones a communis, public, ac catholic sive univer- 


salis, sententize auctoritate secretum esto; cui equidem non 
sine magne arrogantiz et temeritatis not’ quisquam dero- 
gaverit. 


CAPRUT (Vio 


HARESES REPUDIATH. 


DocrrinamM Catholicam, quam in Ecclesia Apostolicd, in 
cecumenicis et veteribus Conciliis, viri Deo dilecti professi 
sunt, etiam et nos profitemur: quam rejecerunt, velut ab 
eadem religione Catholici alienam, etiam et nos rejicimus : 
heereses, quas ih damnarunt, et nos damnamus: earumque 
magistros pariter et discipulos universos detestamur: viz. 
Cerinthianos, Gnosticos, Montanistas, Novatianos, Arianos, 
Photinianos, Manichzeos, Pelagianos, Donatistas!, et eorum 
propagines, quibuscunque tandem nominibus appellentur. 

Quin et si forte erumpant uspiam, ac sese vel blasphemos 
in Deum, vel seditiosos in Principem, Ecclesiam aut rempub- 


*[osten- licam, ostentent®, eos tum legitimis censuris Kcclesiasticis, 


dant.’”’— 


. “7. . of o ce A 
MS.Barl.] tum civilibus suppliciis, coércendos esse omni, qua possumus, 


3) [it reli= 
gionem,” 
—Wek. | 


diligentia curavimus. 


CAPUT VII. 


NOVITATES REJECT, SUPERSTITIONES DEPULSZ, ET RELIGIONIS 
CORRUPTELA SANATH™, 


Qu sive temporum vitio, sive hominum nostrorum incuria, 
sive Romanensium improbitate, in Ecclesiam* nostram irrep- 
serant, aut palam introductz fuerant, intolerande penitus 
ineptize, doctrinze nove, et praxes peregrinee, ez" apud nos ex 

! [Anabaptistas, Pneumatomachos, Ecclesiam nostram irrepserant) depul- 
Nestorianos, Eutychianos, Marcioni- sz;’’ &e. 
tas,” addit editio Gulielmi Wekett. ] {ee in melius mutate, et apud 


™ (Hujus in ed. Wek. capitis titulus nos reformate sunt.’’—Wek. ] 
est: “ Romulidarum novitates (quz in 





RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS. 347 


verbo Dei prescripto, in Synodo legitime congregata, publi- 
cisque regni comitiis’, jamdudum reformat sunt. 

Nulla? nobis Romana nune fides non scripta, nulla nova- 
torum quorumcunque religio. Vanas enim hominum tradi- 
tiones, et nuper nata dogmata, (que testimonio, cum sacrie 
Scripture, tum piz antiquitatis, omnino destituta sunt,) pro- 
cul a nostris amandavimus, et in und Catholicd veritate, reli- 
gione, ac fide, primitus nobis traditd acquievimus. 

Coram picta, sculptive, et vestibus ornata, similitudine 
nosmetipsos non incurvamus. 

Id quod nescimus in reliquiis, adeoque in hostiis et imagi- 
nibus, nequaquam adoramus. 

Ea, quam non intelligit populus, lingua sacra nostra non 
celebramus. 

Illos, in quos non credimus, non invocamus. 

Sacram Eucharistiam medid parte non mutilamus. 

Romanam Ecclesiam, nec aliarum omnium Ecclesiarum, nee 
nostre, matrem aut magistram esse agnoscimus. 

Figmentum transubstantiationis, fumum purgatorii, fer- 
mentum meriti, iteratum Christi Sacrificium a quovis sacer- 
dote pro vivis et defunctis quotidie offerendum, auctoritatem 
Romani Episcopi! in omnes omnium per universum Christia- ! [* Ro- 
norum orbem Ecclesias, [ipso jure divino constitutam’,] papa- 4:2)" °° 
lium conciliorum decreta, et synodi Tridentinz anathemata, Wek.) 
(que sub jactura eternze salutis pro articulis fidei, extra quam owe} 
nemo potest esse salvus, inaudita a seeculis audacii, Papa Pius s [τη 
quartus* recipienda esse mandavit,) tanquam‘ carcinomata et ames 

juramen- 

sciunt populi lingua orent, et sacra ce- ti,”’— 
lebrent sine mente, sine fructu: nunc- Wek.]} 
guid hee unquam Sionis fuere Can- 


tica? Invocent in quem non credunt, 
Sanctosque diligentius et frequentius 


° (Vid. Acts of Uniformity, Preface 
‘to the Book of Common Prayer, &c. ] 

Ρ [In editione Gul. Wekett, ex au- 
tographo Joannis Cosini alio publici 
juris facta, castigatum sic legitur hu- 


jus sectionis aliud admodum argumen- 
tum: ‘‘ Fidem ergo Romano-Catholi- 
cam a Fide nostra vere et pure Catho- 
lica, S. Scripture interminatione mo- 
niti, et auctoritate muniti, penitus re- 
secavimus; idque fecimus non sine 
veteris Ecclesiz multiplici suffragio. 
Age, despondeant se Deo Romani 
novatores fide non scripta: cerle EKe- 
clesia Dei casta, prisca, et catholica, 
non erat ita despondata. Adorent quod 
nesciunt in reliquiis suis, adeoque in 
hostiis et imaginibus suis; traditum 
hoc a monte Samaria, at a monte Sio- 
nis nequaquam profectum. Qua ne- 


adeant, quam Ipsum Christum: pro- 
jiciant se atque incurvent coram picta, 
sculptave, et vestibus ornata similitu- 
dine: Sion ad hee omnia vestes suas 
scinderet. Eucharistiam media parte 
mutilent: in ccenaculo Sionis integre 
illam institutam traditamque omnibus 
accepimus. Nova sibi cudant dogmata, 
figmentum transubstantiationis,’’ &c. } 

4ᾳ [Leguntur in edit. Wek. verba 
hee: “Non sunt hee casta Christi et 
Ecclesiw Sue sponsalia; neque natu- 
ralis nitor, sed fucata et impura cor- 
poris Ecclesiastici pigmenta, seu potius 
carcinomata,” ἅς, | 


1 [ Barl. 
MS.] 


[ “‘avitis.”’ 
—Wek. | 
“ec 
[“‘ Reg- 
norum.’’ 


—Wek.] 


4 [“arti- 
culisque.” 


—Wek.] 


348 DE ECCLESIZ ANGLICANE 


spongiosa religionis avite tubera, penitus ab Ecclesiz nostre 
corpore resecavimus; atque adeo sanitatem et nativam pul- 
chritudinem eidem restituimus. 


CAPUT VIII. 


RELIGIO PRISCA, VERE CHRISTIANA, CATHOLICA, ET STABILITA * 


As avité patrum et antecessorum religione, qua Christiana, 
qua Catholica, nullatenus recedimus; neque ab ulli uspiam 
Kcclesize Catholics parte (in hic ipsi Religione et Fide ad- 
hue permanente) secessionem aut scissuram [fecimus nec!] 
facimus. 

Eandem enim religionem, curam, cultumque Numinis Di- 
vini retinemus, qualem Ipse nobis Christus Verbo Suo, Apo- 
stoli eorumque vestigiis inhzrentes Patres, exemplo suo et 
praxi commendarunt. 

Disciplinam ecclesiasticam, quantum maxime potuimus, 
ad antiquioris Ecclesiz mentem revocavimus, omnemque vite 
licentiam et morum dissolutionem, qué par erat severitate, 
latis’ legibus compescuimus. 

Regni*® statum eo quo accepimus loco, et supremam Prin- 


_cipis majestatem regiam sine ulla vel imminutione vel muta- 


tione incolumem, conservavimus ; externz vero dominationis 
Romane (cui nec divino nec humano jure obstricti eramus) 
indebitam auctoritatem et jugum excussimus. 

De omnibus denique Religionis Christiane dogmatibus, 
quee*tum ad pacem ecclesiasticam et civilem spectabant, tum 
ad salutem eternam erant necessaria, uno ore unoque spiritu, 


 [Incipit cap. viii. in ed. Wek. hisce 
verbis: “* Reformatio et vera Religio 
stabilita— Apud nos suscepta pub- 
lice religio, cura, cultusque Numinis, 
qualem Ipse nobis Christus Verbo Suo, 
Apostoli, eorumque vestigiis inhzren- 
tes Patres exemplo suo et proxi com- 
mendarunt. Quod olim sepe iidem 
sanctissimi Patres, majores nostri, 
quodque hoe ultimo szculo viri unde- 
quaque doctissimi et pientissimi Au- 
gustanam Confessionem (a principibus 
Germaniz, regnisque tum Sueviz tum 


Danie, receptam) promulgantes, fra- 
tres nostri, fecerunt, nos itidem natio- 
nali cleri synodo, legitimo ordinum 
conventu, et confirmatione regia, Ec- 
clesias nostras, veram iis religionem 
restituimus et feliciter vindicavimus. 

Omnes antiquas nuperque natas he- 
reses, quas vel Sacra Scriptura, vel 
universalis Christi Ecclesia, vel vetera 
Concilia condemnarunt, procul a nobis 
amandavimus. 

Disciplinam Ecclesiasticam, &c. | 








RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS, 349 


cum aliis quibuscunque hominibus Deum Patrem Domini 
nostri Jesu Christi rite colentibus et invocantibus, firmiter 
convenimus. 

Fundamentis salvis, diversitatem ut opinionum, ita quoque 
rituum et cremoniarum, circa res juxta enatas et minus 
necessarias', in aliis Ecclesiis, quibus nobis presidendum non ' [“sive 
est, amice, placide, et pacifice ferre possumus, atque adeo santa 
debemus. periculo- 

Quinetiam reliquis ubicunque terrarum Ecclesiis Christiano me; a 
nomine censis, et vere? Catholicam Religionem Fidemque pro- as 
fitentibus’, si nos actu aliquando jungi prohibet sive distantia one 
regionum, sive dissidia hominum, sive persecutio et dissipatio week] 
fidelium, sive aliud quodcunque obstaculum, semper tamen fessie.”— 
animo et affectu jungimur, (id quod de protestantium prae- ὅπ] 
sertim Kcclesiis intelligi cupimus,) reapse eum demonstrare 
parati, cum justa aliqua ratione demonstrandi occasio se ob- 
tulerit. Qualem ab illis vicissim animum et affectum nobis 
etiam demonstrandum instanter deposcimus. 

Eis vero, qui male consulti nos iniquis odiis et conviciis 
insectantur, ignoscat Deus, et meliorem mentem inspiret. 

Dandam enim nobis existimamus operam, quantam ex Dei 
gratia possumus, ut ‘pacem sectemur cum omnibus, et sanc- 
timoniam, sine qué nemo videbit Dominum.’ 

Denique, exercemus nos ‘ad conscientiam habendam sine 
offensa apud Deum et homines.’ 

Atque hzec est summa nostri Christianismi. 

Convicium, quod quandoque Lutherani sumus, quandoque 
etiam Calvinist, protritum jam est. Fuit Lutherus vir doc- 
tissimus, singularibus donis eximioque animi robore a Deo 
instructus, ut veritatem Evangelii, errorum tenebris passim 
fere in hisce occidentalibus Ecclesiis obstructam, in lucem 
apud suos exterosque multos clariorem revocaret. Infallibilis 
vero haud fuit, nec sine Verbo Dei et testimonio antiquitatis 
(cujus erat scientissimus) ipsi aliquid asserenti credimus. 

Habet et Calvinus laudes suas meritissimas: nemo tamen 
nostram eum pro magistro habet, aut in illius verba jurare 
(sicut in Pontificis effata quilibet papista) paratus est. Tanti 
ille apud nos est, quanti esse debet apud omnes, hoc est, 
quanti rationes quas in [re*] qualibet pro se affert, nee pluris. ¢ [Wek.] 
Quod si non magis Paparum dictatis decretisque addicti 


2% 


900 DE ἘΘΟΙΕΞΙΖΕ ANGLICANE 


essent, qui nunc a nobis appellantur pontificii, quam nos vel 
Luthero, vel Calvino, vel cuicungque tandem mortalium, non 
essent, qui jam nunc sunt, atque merito a nostris audiunt. 

Desinant igitur nobis tum Lutherum tum Calvinum expro- 

'fpro  brare. Tam non Lutherum vel Calvinum?® sequimur, quam 
er Jegi- nec ipsum Papam, ubi hic vel illi a S. Scriptura et veterum 
πεν ae Patrum in Fide Catholici consentientium vestigiis discedunt®. 
Barl.] Ex his omnibus manifestum est, novam in orbem aut Ec- 
* [Hic le- clesiam nostram Anglicanam religionem invectam non esse, 
ake 7 Nee eX principus nostris invehi potuisse vel debuisse, quin et 
MS.Barl.] integram et illibatam mansisse ; atque retentam esse eandem 
3 ροῦν religionem Christianam ac Gachakichas qua* substantiam 
ΠῚ Barl.] Suam, que pridem fuerat, queeque sola nos et antecessores 
nostros in gremium Ecclesiz introduxerat, salvosque reddere 
poterat. Abusus enim, corrupteli, errores, et dogmata, que 
partim inscitia et temporum injuria, partim preposterus quo- 
rundam zelus, partim, et potissimum quidem, avaritia homi- 
num et ambitio adjecerat, partes religionis non sunt, nec ad 
essentiam aut corpus Hcclesiz magis pertinent, quam ad 
corpus hominis tubera et ulcera eidem accrescentia; guibus 
tandem sublatis, non in aliud mutatur corpus, sed idem ipsum 
manet quod antea fuit, pristine interim sanitati et pulchri- 
tudini suze naturali restitutum. 

Summa est: Quee perspicuo et certo sacrarum Scriptura- 
rum, et his subjuncte primorum seculorum traditionis eccle- 
siasticee, testimonio ac consensu comprobari poterant, apud 
nos steterunt imconcussa, reliquis suapte imbecillitate corru- 
entibus, et a majoribus nostris diligenter eliminatis. Quod 
autem ad ritus et czeremonias attinet innoxias, ez, que ad 

4[“deco- decorem* et ordinem maxime facere videbantur, retentz no- 


MS. Barl.] bis atque constitute sunt. 


* [Quod superest, usque hujus δά kett non legitur: id, quod hie illic 
capitis finem, in editione Gulielmi We- identidem obvenit. ] 


RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS, 351 


CAPUT IX. 


ORDO ECCLESIASTICUS. 


Quvos omnis agnovit et venerata est antiquitas, rite ordi- 
natos de Clero habemus Diaconos, Presbyteros, et, supra 
utrumque ordinem, Episcopos. 

Presbyteros de media plebe, nec in Clero positos, Aposto- 
lis et veteri Ecclesize inauditos, non novimus: non Diaconos 
sacris Nunquam initiatos, annuos bimulosve, post munere 
exuendos: non mutilum Episcopis Clerum, quorum series 
nullo unquam tempore apud nos interrupta est, nec in eis 
consecrandis canon antiquus Apostolicus aut Nicznus vio- 
latus. 

Ordinem enim amplectimur tuemurque vere Ecclesiasticum, 
et ab Apostolorum temporibus per totum Christianum orbem* 
receptum, quo nihil equidem, cum S. Scripture regulis et 
exemplis, tum Ecclesiz et reipublice statui, magis consen- 
taneum", 


CAPUT X.* 
CONSECRATIO ET MUNUS EPISCOPORUM. 


Consecratio Episcoporum! (omni sublaté superstitione) a 
tribus ad minimum Episcopis, ordine prius episcopali consti- 
_tutis?, per invocationem Spiritus Sancti et impositionem 
manuum [super caput genuflexi sacrandique Episcopi*} per- 
agitur: premissi tamen tum solenni Liturgii, (qui lec- 
tionum ac precum formula est eidem negotio congruenter 
aptata,) tum sacri concione de Pastoris in gregem munere 
et officio‘; subsequente vero sacri Eucharistid ab omnibus 
Episcopis et Clero tum presenti, frequentique gravissimorum 
hominum ccetu celebrata. 


t [pro “per totum Christianum or- publice statui, (ubi quidem penes 
bem,” in ed. Wek. legitur, “ qua late unum rerum summa,) magis consenta- 
patet orbis Christianus.”’ ] neum.”’— Wek. } , ᾿ 

α [quo nihil vel S. Scripturis, vel x [Hoc capitulum sub cap. ix. legi- 
antiquis canonibus, vel Christiane rei- tur in ed. Wek. ] 


'[“in An- 
glia nos- 
tra.’’— 
Wek. ] 

2 { “habitu 
episcopali 
indutis.”’ 
—Wek.} 
3[ Wek. } 


ΕΝ 


[“‘de 
Pastoris 
munere, et 
in gregem 
officio.”"— 


MS. Barl.] 


1 [“ minis- 
tr) 


352 DE ECCLESIZ ANGLICANE 


Porro Episcoporum sive Pastorum munus apud nos non 
nudum tantum nomen, sed res est’, Presbyteros et Diaconos 
ordinare, curatos Ecclesiarum instituere, Clerum et populum 
in rebus sacris dirigere, diligenter concionari, ignaros instru- 
ere, immorigeros punire, contumaces et graviter delinquentes 
excommunicare, hereticos pertinaces condemnare, clericos 
inertes, facinorosos, et inobedientes ab officio et beneficio 
suspendere, deprivare, deponere, et pro delicti magnitudine 
degradare, universam dicecesin quolibet triennio visitare, in 
blasphemos, idololatras, sortilegos, schismaticos, simoniacos, 
ebriosos, incontinentes, adulteros, mcestuosos, et id genus 
alios, si qui reperti fuerint, animadvertere, initiatos in fide 
confirmare, Ecclesias et loca sepulturze dedicare, causas 
denique matrimoniales et testamentarias cognoscere, atque 
in omnibus, que jura spectant Ecclesiastica, queeque ad pie- 
tatem, justitiam, et sobrietatem pertinent, omni quo possunt 
nisu, officium suum prestare et adimplere. 


CAPUT XL 


ORDINATIO ET MUNUS PRESBYTERORUM. 


PRESBYTERIALIS potestatis in Ecclesia propagandze minis- 
ter! inde ab Apostolorum temporibus semper fwit Episcopus’. 

Apud nos igitur, sacram antiquitatem, quantum possumus?, 
per omnia sequentes, Presbyteri, postquam examinati atque 
ad tantum munus idonei reperti fuerint, ab uno Episcopo per 
invocationem Spiritus Sancti, impositionem manuum, sacri 
Codicis traditionem, et verborum Christi, ‘ Accipe Spiritum 
Sanctum: quorum peccata,” &c., prolationem, solenni more 
ordinantur, assistentibus eidem Episcopo in impositione ma- 
naum Presbyteris tum preesentibus. 


y [‘*nec tam opes ab ipsis curantur, 
(qu de iis putida aliorum fertur ca- 
lumnia,) sed ad opus episcopale dili- 
genter sunt attenti, tum concionando 
et ignaros instruendo, tum redarguendo 
et puniendo immorigeros, tum errantes 
reducendo, et confirmando infirmos, af- 
flictos denique consolando, et subser- 
viendo pauperibus ; omnique quo pos- 
sunt nisu officium suum prestant et 


adimplent.””—Wekett. ] 

* {Hoc capitulum, subinde verbis et 
ordine diversum, sed non sensu, sub 
cap. ix. legitur in editione Gul. Wek. ] 

a [‘*Quare hodie in Ecclesia nos- 
tra, venerandam antiquitatem qua po- 
test per dispares temporum conditiones 
imitante, soli Episcopi creant Presby- 
teros.’’— Wek. ] 








RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS. 353 


Premittitur vero Liturgia sacra, una cum Concione, et 
subsequitur Eucharistia. 

Presbyterorum in Ecclesidi nostra munus et officium est, 
populum illorum fidei cureque commissum, omni adhibita 
industria, ad veram Dei cognitionem et vite sanctimoniam 
perducere”, diebus dominicis et festis Evangelium preedicare, 
preces matutinas et vesperas' quotidie recitare, sacris lectio- 
nibus diligenter attendere, sacramenta religiose et reverenter 
administrare‘, egrotos visitare, afflictos consolari, peenitentes 
absolvere®, aliaque, quee illis incumbunt, divina officia pera- 
gere, ad omnem denique sese sobrietatem et pictatem compo- 
nere, decenti et clericali habitu incedere, moresque et vitam 
universam ad normam Sacrarum Scripturarum ac recepte 
apud nos discipline regulas instituere. 


CAPUT XIT- 


ORDINATIO ET MUNUS DIACONORUM. 


Diacont a solo Episcopo per impositionem manuum, et 
Nominis Divini invocationem, ad obeundum quod iis incum- 
bit officium ordinantur. 

Ad illos autem pertinet! sacras Scripturas et homilias pub- 
lic auctoritate editas diligenter populo perlegere, in celebra- 
tione divinorum officiorum ac distributione sacramenti Coenze 
Dominic Presbyteris assistere, juniores in articulis Fidei et 
catechismo erudire, infantes baptizare in absentid Presbyteri, 
᾿ 46 conditione pauperum et egrotantium® inquirere, aliquando 
etiam predicare, si ad id muneris ab Episcopo censeantur 
idonei, denique omni studio sic vitam moresque suos ad 
regulas Christiane religionis et ecclesiastice discipline diri- 
gere, ut, quantum in illis fuerit, salutaria aliis exempla se- 
metipsos prebeant. 


» [in unitate Fidei et caritatis con- _ vites ad eleemosynas excitare.”"—Wek. ] 


jungere, erroribus Verbo Dei contrariis © [Hoc capitulum sub cap. ix. legi- 

explosis, sana Doctrina enutrire et fo- turin ed. Wek.] 

vere.”’— Wek. } ‘ [“in iis que sibi mandate fuerint 
e [mundi curis et vanis illecebris  Ecclesiis.""—Wek. ] 

valedicere.”—Wek. j s [in sua parochia degentium.”— 


4 [pauperibus subvenire, atque di- Wek.) 


COSIN. = Aa 


1 [ ves- 
pertinas.”’ 
—MS. 
Barl. } 


854. DE ΒΟΟΙΒΙ ANGLICAN A 


1 [Hae ['Locus vero et tempus, quibus Sacri Ordines conferuntur, 
role - 5 Ame 5 : 
pe es. sunt Ecclesia Cathedralis vel Parochialis ubi Episcopus com- 


ts moratur, et dies Dominici immediate sequentes J ejunia qua- 
Gulielmi tuor Temporum, ad preces et jejunia in solennibus Ministro- 
bi rum sacrorum ordinationibus antiquitus instituta, atque ea 
§ ae propter in Ecclesia Anglicana hodie continuata. 

et cap. x. 


VISITATIO ECCLESIARUM. 


Idem in spirituali Dei Domo, Ecclesii, quod in materiatis 
eedificiis usu venit: horum decidui parietes, nisi statumi- 
nentur ; illius precipua fulcra, (vite pietas, doctrine puritas,) 
nisi sacra tecta conservantur, in ruinam vergunt. 

Atque hinc Ecclesiarum omnium apud nos visitationes nate 
atque institute sunt. 

Quas quidem ab ipsis Apostolis receptas pro praecipuis ec- 
clesiastice discipline nervis habemus. 

His enim ab Archidiaconis (qui oculi Episcoporum dicuntur) 
annis singulis, ab ipsis vero Episcopis quolibet triennio, perac- 
tis diigenter inspectionibus, tum doctrine ccelestis sinceritas 
ab erroribus, et cultus externi puritas a superstitione, tum 
vitee Christiane integritas a crimine, totaque religio blasphe- 
mia et scandalo vindicantur. 

Capita vero, de quibus Preesulibus nostris in eorum visita- 
tionibus inquirendum est, media item per que crimina omnia 
sunt exquirenda et corrigenda, subjecta tabuld VII." deseri- 
buntur. | 


CAPUT XIITZ.i 


LITURGIA. 


*[“lauda- [Ν ordinatione Liturgize hoc inprimis observatum’ est, quod 


bile et de- : - - - ake 
corum.” Per omnes hujus regni Ecclesias una jam et eadem divinarum 


—Wek.] lectionum, cantionum, et precum publicarum, forma habetur’, 
8 [ “habe- οἵ Ὁ : ae : - 
[ cum antea plurimis retro annis alii Sarisburiensem, Ebora- 


atur,’’— 


MS. Barl. | 


h [ Vid. Ricardi Cosini Politeiam, una cura Gul. Wek. editam. | 
cum Joannis Cosini Relig. Eccl. Angi. (Cap. xi. in ed. Wek. } 





RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE ΕΙΤΊΒΌΞ, 355 


censem, aut Lincolniensem, alii alios usus sequerentur: ex 
quo cum zmulationes prave, tum rixe et contentiones, ni- 
mium szepe inter ipsos oriebantur. 

De multitudine otiosarum czremoniarum, quibus Ecclesia 
nostra plus satis erat onerata, magnum numerum reseca- 
vimus. 

Retinuimus! tamen, atque etiamnum colimus, non tantum 1 [* Reti- 
ea que ab Apostolis scimus fuisse tradita, sed etiam alia ΑΥΤΟΝ] 
quzedam, que sine Ecclesiz incommodo et religionis detri- 
mento fieri posse videbantur: ea vero omnia, que cum sacris 
literis pugnabant, et sobriis hominibus indigna essent, merito 
repudiavimus. 

Porro constitutum est, ut omnia ed lingué psallantur et 
legantur, quam nostri intelligunt, quee* veteres universi sub * Leer 


utroque Testamento et precati sunt ipsi, et populum® precari ἘΠ Ἵ 


docuerunt*, *[“ popu- 
lo’’—MS 
Barl. | 


CAPUT XIV. 


OFFICIUM MATUTINUM ET VESPERTINUM. 


Divinorvm officiorum celebratio, tam mane quam vespere, 
nobis‘ quotidiana est. In Ecclesiis Cathedralibus et Colle- « [« solen- 
giatis consuevimus omnia voce sonora et cantu musico per- We KD = 
agere, in parochialibus vero et capellis minoribus simplici 
tantum lectione ea recitare. 

Presbyter, veste ecclesiastici indutus, incipit matutinas et 
vesperas a selectissimis S. Scripturarum Sententiis, quibus 
~ auditorum animi ad pcenitentiam et pietatis affectum exci- 
tantur!. 

Excipit illas gravis admodum ad populum Exhortatio, qua 
monentur omnes errata sua coram Deo publice confiteri, ut 
absolutionem ab iisdem consequantur: simul invitantur ad 
agendas Deo gratias pro suis in nos maximis collatis bene- 
ficiis, ad debitas Ipsi*® laudes in Psalmis et Hymnis*® decan- 5 [- Ip- 
tandas, ad auscultandum sacris Lectionibus ex Ipsius Verbo sits."— 


Wek. } 

6 ἣν Can- 

k [Paucis verbis, sensu tamen con- '[“quibus magnam excitandi in au- gjcis,""— 
sentaneis, diversum legitur ined. Wek. ditorum animis pios motus efficaciam wo, ] 


caput hoe; cui porro prima capitis xiv. _inesse constat.’’— Wek. } 
sectio subjungitur. | 


. Aa2 


356 DE ECCLESIZ ANGLICANE 


depromptis, atque ad ea piis precibus efflagitanda, que tum 
ad corporis tum ad anime salutem sunt necessaria. Heee 
enim summa est totius offici. 

Sequitur Confessio ab omni populo humiliter genuflexo 
post Presbyterum recitata, atque Absolutio ab ipso tantum 
Presbytero generali verborum formé et erecto corpore pro- 
nuntiata. 

'[“Hisita Deinde’ sacrorum Minister alt&é voce orditur Orationem 


ἸῸΝ Dominicam, que omnium officiorum, laudum, et precum 
Wek) subsequentium fundamentum est. 
Post usitatos versiculos, “ Domine, labia nostra aperias,” 
&c., una cum responsis, et “ Gloria Patri,” &c., cantatur Al- 
leluia, et Psalmus XCY. ad laudes Dei invitatorius, quem et 
alii sequuntur, singulis eo ordine et numero ita dispositis, 
ac per singulos dies distributis, ut infra mensis spatium to- 
tum Psalterium finiatur. 
*[“sa- Psalmos alternatim recitatos sequuntur Lectiones binz?, e 


cre,’’— = ᾿ ᾿ 6 cs 
Wek.]  Veteri Testamento prima, quam ad matutinas excipit hymnus, 


qui dicitur 8S. Ambrosii, “ΤῸ Deum laudamus,” ad vesperas 
°[“Mag- vero canticum B. Marie Virginis?; e Novo Testamento al- 


nificat ani- ὃ 5 
mamea tera: post eam ad matutinas hymnus Zachariz, ad vesperas 


ae canticum Simeonis. 

Wek. ] Lectiones autem ita ordinatz sunt, ut Testamentum Vetus 
singulis annis absolvatur, Novum vero ter in anno perlegen- 
dum sit. 


At in dominicis et festis habentur Lectiones propriz, et 
in festis majoribus Psalmi de mysterio celebrato prophetici. 


4 [alta Deinde altis vocibus* et corporibus erectis? Symbolum Fi- 
voce.’’— : . : : : 5 
MS. Bar, dei Apostolicum ab omnibus recitatur; in quibusdam vero 


et Wek.] festis Symbolum quod dicitur S. Athanasii. 

ὃ [ρ . . . ε 

τι: αἰ ἢ Postea genibus flexis dicuntur Preces et Responsa pro di- 

—Wek.] verso hominum statu, una cum tribus Collectis, prima de 
tempore secundum anni ordinem, altera pro pace, tertia pro 
gratia et Dei in omnibus nostris actionibus adjutorio atque 
moderamine™. 


™ [“tertia pro gratia et adjutorio suo nos dirigat moderamine, et miseri- 
Dei, ut in omnibus nostris actionibus cordia proteyat.’”—Wek. ] 





RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE, RITIBUS. 357 


CAPUT XV. 


LITANLE. 


Dresvus dominicis, feriis quartis et sextis, atque aliis tem- 
poribus, cum ab Episcopo requisitum fuerit, post matutinas 
recitantur aut decantantur Litaniz, ab omni mvocatione ho- 
minum mortuorum defecate, plurimisque pis petitionibus 
auctz, que tandem precatione S. Chrysostomi, et verbis 
Apostoli votivis, terminantur. 


CAPUT XVi. 


OFFICIUM EUCHARISTL#. 


Summa cum reverentia et religione celebratur apud nos 
Eucharistia, tam festis majoribus, quam singulis primis cu- 
jusque mensis anni dominicis. Quod si reperti fuerint, qui 
eandem szpius postulaverint, et digne communicare potue- 
rint, aliis etiam temporibus, dominicis, festis, et ferid quali- 
bet, celebrare licet, atque adeo oportet. 

Servantur autem antiquitus usitate czremonie, ordo lec- 
tionum, orationum series, vestitus ecelesiasticus, et alia simi- 
lia, quee vel ad zdificationem vel ad decorem' pertinent’. 

Fit initium ab Oratione Dominici, Collecti pro puritate® 
mentium4, et recitatione Praceptorum Dei, in fine cujusque 
- preecepti misericordia ejus ab omni populo genuflexo im- 
plorati. Subjungitur Precatio pro Rege, utriusque scilicet 
tabulze a Deo constituto custode. 

Hane precationem excipit Collecta de anni tempore, Col- 
lectam Epistola, Epistolam Evangelium, Evangelium vero 
Symbolum Fidei Niczeno-Constantinopolitanum. 

Sequitur Homilia sive Concio sacra ad populum; atque 
initio concionis publicantur preces ab omnibus publice pri- 
vatimque faciende: “primo, pro Ecclesii Christi Catholica 
per totum terrarum orbem disseminata, ut, qui nomen Do- 
mini confitentur, in veri fide et caritate ad preescriptum 
S. Scripture: consentiant universi: deinde, pro omnibus re- 


1 [“ deco- 
rum.’’— 
MS.Barl. ] 


9 


2 [*« perti- 
nebant.”’ 
—Wek. ] 
* [purifi- 
catione 
cordium.”’ 
—Wek. } 

4 [‘* men- 
te 
MS. Barl. } 


11“ pre- 
stet.’’— 
Wek. | 

3 | ‘insti- 
tuat.’’— 


Wek. | 


3 [“ obdor- 
mierunt.’’ 


—Wek.] 


308 DE ECCLESIE ANGLICANA 


gibus, principibus, ac gubernatoribus Christianis, ut inter 
se concordes vivant; pro Rege nostro, verze Fidei defensore, 
et supremo subditorum suorum, tam in causis ecclesiasticis, 
quam szecularibus, gubernatore post Deum unico®, pro familia 
et consiliariis regiis; pro omnibus, qui sub illo magistratum 
gerunt®; pro regni nobilibus, episcopis, clero, et populo uni- 
verso; ut eorum unusquisque officlum suum preestent!, veram 
religionem promoveant, et vitam pie, juste, sobrieque insti- 
tuant?: denique, pro his qui sunt in angustiis aut infirmita- 
tibus constituti, ut illis Deus succurrere dignetur. Nec vivi 
tantum Ei commendantur, sed gratiz etiam aguntur pro 118, 
qui in Christo obdormiunt’, et requiescunt in pace, laudabili 
imprimis Patriarcharum et Prophetarum numero, sanctissimo 
Apostolorum choro, candidato Martyrum exercitu, et pro 
aliis omnibus, qui Fidem Christi servarunt integram, ac reli- 
gionem illibatam: simul oratur Deus, ut tam illis quam 
nobis propitius beatam a mortuis resurrectionem indulgeat, 
perfectamque absolutionem in die supremo, atque eternam 
in regni Sui glorie felicitatem, concedat.” Clauditur autem 
ista precum et gratiarum actionis publicatio Oratione Do- 
minica. 

Habité demum et finité concione, (que partem aliquam 
vel Evangel vel Epistole, vel alterius loci S. Scripture, et 
explicare et applicare solet,) dies festi atque jejunales, si qui 
sint proxima septimand observandi, indicantur, atque una 
excitantur omnes, quibus est copia, ad elargiendam eleemo- 
synam, qua pauperum egestas sublevetur. 

Subsequitur Offertorium (delectis et recitatis in hance rem 
S. Secripturarum sententiis) quod supplet vicem veterum ob- 
lationum. De pane itidem et vino in Eucharistid conse- 
crandis prospectum est, que super Altare sive Mensam Do- 
mini, decenti ornatu paratam, mundisque lineis coopertam, 
in patina et calice argenteis, ac plerunque deauratis, collo- 
cantur. 

Peracto Offertorio, rursus oratur ad Altare Dei “ pro statu 
Ecclesize Catholicee in hoc seeculo militantis, pro Imperato- 
ribus et Regibus, [pro ministris eorum, et potestatibus, pro 


n - . ~ . . ous ie Sule: 
[“‘ut sub ipso (ipsaive) vitam de- ° [ut justitiam administrent, ne- 
gamus qwietam cum omni pietate et quitias puniant, et veram religionem 
honestate.’’— Wek. ] promoveant.’’— Wek. ] 





or 


RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRESQUE RITIBUDS. “20 


statu seeculi'] pro rerum quiete, pro Episcopis et Clero, pro! ΓἫ ek. 
pauperibus et infirmis, atque ansuper ut rata et accepta apud δὰ 
Deum sint oblata a nobis munera.” 

Postea, qui nobiscum communicaturi non sunt, emittuntur 
foras: jubet etiam Sacrorum Minister, “ nequis blasphemiz, 
adulterii, odu, aut ire flagrantis, alteriusve sibi criminis 
reus’, nobiscum maneat, aut ad Mensam Dominicam audeat ἢ [‘‘ con- 
accedere, priusquam peccata sua dignd peenitentid defleverit ee ah ] 
et absolutionem? consecutus fuerit.” 3[ ‘bene- 

Reliquos autem omnes adstantes monet, “ut, in quem finem a ae 
sanctissimum hoe Sacramentum a Domino nostro institutum ee 
sit, im animos suos revocent, ut*, passionis et mortis Christi ee hay 
memores, gratias humillime agant; ac denique, ut quilibet, τιν ut.” 
qui juxta preeceptum Apostoli seipsos probirunt, ita de pane ge 
110 edant, et de calice bibant, ut Christi simul Corpus man- 
ducare et Sanguinem haurire possint, ad animarum suarum 
spirituale, vivificum, et efficax nutrimentum, atque tandem 
sacrorum mysteriorum vere participes fiant.” 

Finité Exhortatione, communicaturi chorum ingrediuntur, 
atque in genua procumbunt. 

Sequitur Confessio et Absolutio, una cum sententiis aliquot 
consolatoriis e 8S. Scriptura selectis. 

Ad hunc modum paratis omnibus, Sacrorum Antistes or- 
ditur Preefationem communem”, in Ecclesia univers’ a primis ὅ [sed _ 
usque szculis usitatam, “de cordibus sursum habendis,” et Seta 
“‘ gratiis Deo habendis, sicut dignum et justum est,” &c.; cui —Wek. } 
in festis quibusdam solennioribus proprias etiam przfationes 
subnectit, atque has Hymno Trisagio claudit. 

Tum ad Altare genuflexus omnium nomine precatur, “ ut 
sic Carnem Christi manducemus, Ejusque bibamus Sangui- 
nem, ut corpora nostra per mundissimum Suum® Corpus 5 [« Il- 
purificentur, animzque nostre pretioso Suo® Sanguine la- ταν Barl.] 
ventur.” 

Deinde, sese erigens, per preces solennes institutionem 
Sacramenti et ipsa Christi instituentis verba continentes, 
panem in manus acceptum frangens, vinumque in calicem 
effundens, utrumque symbolum’ benedicit, atque in Sacra- 7? [«utri 
mentum Corporis et Sanguinis Christi consecrat. Fe a 

Absoluti Benedictione, primo seipsum, flexis genibus, com- MS.Barl.}] 
municat, deinde reliquos (si qui adsint)* Ministros; postea τ΄ ποτὸν 


rum.’’— 


Wek. | 


1[ uni- 
versum.”’ 


—Wek.] 


2[MS. 
Bar]. | 


3“ super- 
pelliceo 
indu o.’’ 


—Wek. ] 


360 DE ECCLESIZ ANGLICAN 


populum preesentem': quibus omnibus et singulis utrumque 
sacrum porrigens, clari voce ait, “Corpus Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi custodiat corpus tuum et animam tuam in vitam 
eternam. Accipe, et manduca Sacramentum istud in com- 
memoratione mortis Domini, et de Illo, [hoc est, Christo?, | 
pasce teipsum in corde tuo cum fide et gratiarum actione.” 
Similiter, “Sanguis Domini, qui pro te effusus est,’ &ce. 
Ipsi autem interea dum accipiant, atque adeo usque ad 
finem totius sacree celebrationis, in genua procumbentes, 
Christum, non Sacramentum, adorant. 

—Post Communionem recitatur ab omnibus Oratio Do- 
minica. 

Kam vero comitatur solennis Ecclesiz Eucharistia sive 
Sacrificium Laudis?, in commemorationem Sacrificii Christi 
propitiatorii semel in cruce peracti, Deo Opt. Max. obla- 
tum. 

Subjungitur Oblatio nostrarum omnium animarum et cor- 
porum in “hostiam vivam, sanctam, et rationalem,” una 
cum oratione, “ut, rata hec omnia atque accepta Deo ha- 
beantur, ita ut, per merita et mortem Filii Sui Jesu Christi, 
nos et universa Ejus Ecclesia, remissionem peccatorum cz- 
teraque passionis [hus beneficia consecuti, ccelesti Sud gratia 
et benedictione repleamur.” 

Deinde, dicitur aut canitur Hymnus, “ Gloria in excelsis 
Deo,” &c.: et postremo, post unam aut alteram Collectam, 
populus cum solenni Sacerdotis aut Episcopi (si preesens sit) 
benedictione dimittitur. 


CAPUT XVII. 


BAPTISMUS. 


SAcRAMENTUM Baptismi dominicis festisque diebus, quum 
maxima populi frequentia confluxerit, tempore vel matutini 
vel vespertini Officii a Sacrorum Ministro, surpelliceo et stola 
induto®, ad Baptisterium, non procul ab ingressu Hcclesize 
collocatum, administratur. 


» (“et gratiarum actionis a sacro- municantium,’’—Wek. ] 
rum Antistite, nomine omnium com- 4 [Cap. xiy. in ed. Wekett. ] 





RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS. 561 


Quod si tamen necessitas urgeat, nihil prohibet, quominus 
alio sive loco sive tempore, per eundem aut alium quemcun- 
que Ministrum idoneum, infantes baptizentur. 

In administratione vero hujus Sacramenti adhibentur preces 
et lectiones, eidem actioni congruentes. Subjiciuntur que- 
stiones et responsa “de abrenunciando diabolo, et omnibus 
ejus operibus, una cum mundi et carnis illecebris, atque de 
Fidei articulis credendis' in Symbolo Apostolico compre- 


2 ; Lowen i . dendo 
hensis.” Infans in manus Ministri traditus, ab eo vel caute ys_Ban.] 
immersus vel aqua tantum tinctus, in nomine Patris et Fili 


et Spiritus Sancti baptizatur, signo Crucis fronti illus im- 


presso. 


Post gratiarum actionem' Patrimi a Ministro admonentur, 


ut eundem infantem (quamprimum ad etatem pervenerit) in 


eidem ipsa Religione et Fide Christi, in quam baptizatus est, 
diligenter instruant, atque’ instructum ad Episcopi confirma- 


tionem adduci curent. 


CAPUT XVIII. 


CONFIRMATIO. 


ConFirMATIO puri tantum prece et manuum impositione, 
absque aliis ritibus nuper a superstitiosis hominibus inaniter 
excogitatis, ab Episcopo perficitur’. 


CAPUT XIX. 


MATRIMONIUMe 


SoLENNIzATIO matrimonii, quod S. Apostolus “in omnibus 
honorabile” esse pronuntiavit, more antiquo, (premissis per 
tres dies Dominicos aut Festos promulgationibus,) cum" pre- 
cibus et benedictionibus peragitur. 


t [ob collatam infanti Regenera- 
tionis gratiam, et Adoptionem.’’— 
Wek. | 

s [“atque ad Episcopum in illa ipsa 
Fide, et Spiritus Sancti gratia, ab eo 
confirmandum adducant.’’—Wek. | 


‘ (ab Episcopis nostris ecclesias- 


tico ornatu indutis solenniter in Eccle- 
sia perficitur.’’—Wek. } 

u [Quod superest in ed. Wek. legi- 
tur: .. ‘‘etiamnum apud nos hodie in 
Ecclesiis nostris instituta est.” ] 


1 [ cre- 


” 


1{ “sacer- 
aot 


Wek.] 


2/ Ed. 
Wek. | 


5 * Corin- 
οὔ 


thianos. 


—Wek. ] 


362 DE ECCLESIZ ANGLICANE 


CAPUT XX. 


VISITATIO INFIRMORUM. 


Quanpo infirmi et moribundi visitantur, a Sacrorum 
Ministro adhibentur preces et exhortationes, huic Officio 
maxime congrue. Recitantur articuli Symboli Apostolici: 
interrogatur infirmus, num illos omnes firma fide credat ; 
num in edidem fide et caritate cum omnibus moriturus 
sit; num testamentum condiderit; et an pauperum memor 
fuerit: denique, num de omnibus, que perpetraverit, peccatis 
seipsum peenituerit ; et spem suam unicam in Christi meritis 
collocaverit? Quod, si conscientiam in re quilibet gravatam 
sentiat, monetur, ut de illa privatam et specialem confes- 
sionem Deo! faciat. Finit’ vero Confessione, Presbyter* eum 
consolatur, et ab omnibus peccatis suis illum (vere poeniten- 
tem) solenni verborum forma absolvit, et tandem ultimo munit 
Viatico sacro. ὩΣ 


CAPUT XXI. 


SEPULTURA MORTUORUM. 


[OFFICIUM DENIQUE SEPULTURE AD HUNC MODUM ORDINATUR’.] 


ELAto corpori mortuo sacrorum Minister it obviam ad 
ingressum Coemeterii, et euntibus, qui cum ipso sunt, Clericis 
aliisque ad sepulchrum, recitanturY primo sententiz sacre de 
mortalitate et miserid hominum; deinde de resurrectione et 
viti eterna fidelium. 

Dum cadaver terra injecté operitur’, “ cum certa spe resur- 
rectionis ad felicitatem cclestem,”’ dicitur antiphona, “ Au- 
divi vocem de ccelo, Beati mortui, qui in Domino moriuntur, 
amodo requiescunt a laboribus suis.” 

Postea legitur xv. caput prime Epistole ad Corinthios’, 
“Christus resurrexit a mortuis, primitiz dormientium,” ete. 


* [*Sacerdos eum ab omnibus pee- ne: ‘Ego sum Resurrectio,’ &c.”— 
catis suis solenni verborum forma ab- Wek. ] 
solvit,”” &c.— Wek. ] z [*Sacerdos dicit, ‘Cum Deo vi- 
¥ [“‘istze ab iis recitantur Antipho- sum,’ &c.’”’—Wek. ] 





RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS. 363 


Finité Lectione, et omnibus genuflexis, dicitur Κύριε ἐλέη- 
σον, una cum Oratione Dominica et duabus Collectis, quibus 
tum gratiz Deo aguntur pro felici defuncti fratris aut sororis 
exitu, tum preces fiunt, “ut et nos et idem frater noster, una 
cum omnibus aliis in vera Fide et confessione Christi demor- 
tuis, perfectam consummationem et beatitudinem tam cor- 
poris quam anime in ccelis consequamur.” 

Ex his autem sive votis sive precibus, sive gratiarum actioni- 
bus, quas pro mortuis juxta universalem antique Ecclesiz 
consuetudinem fundimus, Purgatorium, quod vocant, nulla- 
tenus imus stabilitum. 

Noviter enim inventa, neque inter credenda nobis, neque 
agenda, ponimus. 


[Hoe hujus tractatus loco, sicut a Gulielmo Wekett editus est, D. Richardi 
Cosini legendz sunt “ Tabulz, sive Prima Lineamenta presentis Politeiz Eccle- 
siastice Angliz,’ A.D. 1589. ] 


1 [ “ Nati- 
Vitatis,” 
&c.— 
Wek. | 


APPENDIX. 


GAPUT Ί: 


DIES FESTI. 


Sacrati Deo apud nos sunt, 

Omnes totius anni dies Dominici® : 
Dies festus Circumcisionis Christi : 

Dies festus Epiphanize Ejusdem : 

F. Purificationis B. Marie Virginis : 

F. Annunciationis ejusdem : 

F. Sancti Matthie Apostoli : 

F. Sancti Marci Evangeliste : 

F. SS. Philippi et Jacobi minoris, Apostolorum : 
F. Ascensionis Domini: 

F. 18. Joannis Baptiste : 

F. S. Petri Apostoli : 

F. 5. Jacobi majoris, Apostoli : 

F..S. Bartholomei, Apostoli: 

F. S. Matthzi, Apostoli et Evangeliste : 
F. S. Michaelis, et omnium Angelorum : 
F. 8. Luce Evangeliste : 

F. SS. Simonis, et Judee Apostolorum : 
F. Omnium Sanctorum: 

F. 5. Andrez Apostoli : 

F. S. Thome Apostoli : 

F, Nativitatis Domini : 

F. S. Stephani Protomartyris : 

F. 5. Joannis Apostoli et Evangelista : 
F. SS. Innocentium : 

Feria secunda et tertia post Pascha : 
Feria secunda et tertia post Pentecostem : preter 
Diem Conversionis 8S. Pauli”, et 


* [“ Dominica Paschatis, Pentecos- » [SS. Pauli et Barnabe Dies Festi 
tes, et Trinitatis, una cum reliquis om- in Gulielmi Wekett editione non le- 
nibus,”’ &c.— Wek. ] guntur. | 





DE ECCLESIZ ANGLICANZ, &c. 365 


Diem 8S. Barnabe : 
Quibus omnibus divinis officiis et rebus sacris attenti sumus. 


CAPUT TT. 


DIES JEJUNIORUM, 


Vici114, sive dies antecedentes 

Dominicam Paschatis : 

Domimicam Pentecostes: 

Festum Nativitatis Domini: 

Festum Ascensionis Ejusdem : 

Festum Purificationis Β. Mariz Virginis : 

Festum Annunciationis ejusdem : 

Festa Apostolorum: (exceptis tantum diebus 8. Joannis Evange- 
listee, et SS. Philippi ac Jacobi minoris:) et 

Festum Omnium Sanctorum: apud nos in operibus pietatis et exer- 
citio jejunii transigendze sunt. 

In his enim sumptionem cibi ultra consuetam horam differre, et per 
integrum diem sola frugali ccena, aut saltem solo prandio, contenti 
esse jubemur. 


CAPUT III. 


DIES ABSTINENTI 2. 


Torum tempus Quadragesime : 
Feria sexta et septima uniuscujusque hebdomadis’: (nisi in eas1 [per 
Festum Nativitatis Domini inciderit :) aes 
Feria quarta, sexta, et septima, quatuor anni Temporum : Wek.) 
Tres dies Rogationum ante Ascensionem Domini: 
Omnesque prefate Vigiliz : tempora nobis sunt ad majorem sobrie- 
tatis, moderationis, ac temperantic exercitationem constituta. 
Quibus (nisi nonnullorum corporis ratio evidenter et necessario aliud 
exegerit) a communi Carnium esu (vi legis etiam politica) absti- 
nere oportet®. 
Tnterea tamen in mero ciborum delectu vel minimam religionis 
partem collocare nefas ducimus, nisi quatenus liberiorem gulam 


compescat. 


e [Hee et que hoc capite sequun- que sensu, paululum in ed. Wek. mu- 
tur verba, salvo quidem consentaneo- tata sunt. } 


900 


DE ECCLESIZ ANGLICAN 


CAPURAY: 


ANGLIZ& DIVISIO IN SUAS PARTES ECCLESIASTICAS 4, 


Torum Anglie regnum ratione Ecclesiastice jurisdictionis in duas 
Archiepiscopales Provincias, Cantuariensem et Eboracensem, divi- 


ditur: 


Utraque autem Provincia in suas Episcopales Diceceses : 
Singule Diceceses, preesertim que majores sunt, in suos Archidia- 


conatus®; 


Isti in Decanatus, qui Rurales sive regionales appellantur. 
Atque hi quidem in suas Parochias dispescuntur. 
Parochie vero per universum Regnum computatz nonies mille sunt 


et amplius. 


Sunt et Ecclesiz Cathedrales XXVI., preter Collegiatas aliquot, et 


Hospitalia quamplurima. 


CAPUT V. 


CANTUARIENSIS PROVINCIZ DICZCESES SIVE EPISCOPATUS, 


Ipsa Dicecesis Cantuariensis : 
Londinensis : 


Wintoniensis : 


Eliensis : 

Wigorniensis : 
Salisburiensis : 
Lincolniensis : 


Norwicensis : 
Batho-Wellensis : 
Herefordiensis : 

11. Exoniensis : 

12. Coventrio-Lichfeldensis : 
13. Cicestrensis : 


— 
SOHRNOAA WY τι 


ἃ [“yatione Ecclesiastice Jurisdic- 
tionis.’’—Wek. ] 

© (*quandoque quartam partem Di- 
cecesis continentes.”’—Ed. Wek.; ubi 
explicit hoc caput his verbis: “ De- 
canatus, quibus preficiuntur Rura- 
les Decani, antiquis Archipresbyteris 
non multum dissimiles, et complecten- 


tes plerumque decem Parecias, quas 
concilium Chalcedonense Regionales 
vocat: denique in Ecclesias Cathedra- 
les, et Collegiatas, ac Hospitalia, divi- 
duntur. Universum vero regnum com- 
plectitur Parcecias par varios Comita- 
tus sparsas nonies mille, septingentas, 
et viginti quinque.” | 





RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS. 907 


14, Roffensis: 

15. Glocestrensis : 

16. Oxoniensis : 

17. Petroburgensis : 

18. Bristoliensis : 

19. Menevensis : 

20. Asaphensis : 

21. Bangorensis : 

22. Landavensis: 

Que omnes Cantuariensi Metropolitano subdite sunt. 


CAPUT VI. 


EBORACENSIS PROVINCIA DIG:CESES SIVE EPISCOPATUS. 


1. Ipesa Dicecesis Eboracensis : 

2. Dunelmensis : 

3. Carliolensis : 

4. Cestrensis: 

5. Sodorensis : 

Que Metropolitano Eboracensi subjiciuntur’. 


CALUT Vit: 


ECCLESIZ CATHEDRALES,. 


-In his plura sunt membra: 
1. Lectores Epistole et Evangelii : 
2. Cantores Symphoniaci: [qui regiis Injunctionibus tenentur 
Hymnos in Dei Omnipotentis laudem canere, iis modulationibus ut 
ipsee hymnorum sententice una intelligantur!. | τ 
3. Presbyteri Subcanonici 2, qui, studio Sacrarum Scripturarum in- , [sive 
cumbentes, matutinas et vesperas quolibet die in choro celebrare te- Vicarii 


g Chorales.”’ 
nentur ὃ ; —Wek. | 


7 [““ omnes.””—Ed. Wek.; ubiaddita Ecclesiastice Jurisdictionis, que hodie 
sunt hee que sequuntur verba:—“ Et sub serenissimo et potentissimo mo- 
hee utriusque Provincie in hoc am- _ narcha Carolo exercetur.’’ } : 
plissimo ac florentissimo Regno An- s [‘ frequenti S. Eucharistiz admi- 
gliz divisio, tanquam basis est totius _nistrationi servientes.””—Wek. ] 


1 [““δὰ nu- 
tum re- 
gium.’’— 
Wek. ] 

2 [Ed. 
Wek. | 

3 fee sive 
Nationa- 
165, sive.” 


—Wek. } 


368 


DE ECCLESIA® ANGLICAN 


4. Presbyteri Canonici®, seu Prebendarii, quorum alii sedem tan- 
tum habent in Choro, alii etiam suffragium ferunt in Capitulo; et 
statis suis vicibus omnes in Ecclesia concionantur. 

5. His omnibus preest Decanus, qui verbum Dei sedulo preedi- 
care, hospitalitatem exercere, et festis majoribus sacra celebrare, 


obstringitur. 


CAPUT VIII. 


SYNODI PROVINCIALES. 


Synopr apud nos ee sunt legitime, que ex licentid et mandato 


Regis', ab Archiepiscopo indict, veris et genuinis suis [tum ad de- 


liberandum, tum ad definiendum? 


membris constant. 


Vocantur ergo ad Synodos? Provinciales, tam episcopi, decani, et 
archidiaconi, quam bini presbyteri ex singulis dicecesibus, totidemque 
e cathedralibus ecclesiis ! communibus suffragiis electi. 

A quibus cum de religionis dogmatibus vel canonibus ecclesiasticis 
mature deliberatum et definitum aliquid fuerit, regia auctoritate et 


confirmatione accedente, censetur ratum 


ΚΡ et ex statuto regni vim 


legis obtinet, modo nihil ibi definiatur, quod vel Sacrze Scripture vel 


juribus publicis contrarium sit. 


CAP UAVIX. 


SECTA, REGNI ET RELIGIONIS HOSTES. 


Maeno! Ecclesiarum et Regnorum omnium detrimento enati olim 


sunt Anabaptistarum et Perduellium greges. 


* [Explicit hoe cap. in ed. Wek. his 
verbis: “4. Canonici seu Prebenda- 
rii, quorum aliqui Residentiarii dicun- 
tur, qui sedem habeut in Choro, et suf- 
fragium ferunt in Capitulo, statisque 
suis vicibus concionantur: quibus e- 
tiam incumbit, ut hospitales sint, et 
non modo in Cathedrali Ecclesia cujus 
sunt Canonici, sed in aliis etiam ejus- 
dem Dicecesis Ecclesiis, unde ipsi vel 
ipsorum Ecclesie aliquod vectigal seu 
annuos reditus percipiunt, Evangelium 
diligenter annuntient. 5. Subdecanus, 
Thesaurarius, Cancellarius, et Preecen- 
tor, qui etiam Residentiarii sunt. 6. De- 


E quorum reliquiis et 


canus, qui in his omnibus preest, qui 
verbum Dei sedulo preedicare, hospi- 
talitatem exercere, et Festis solennio- 
ribus (si ad hoe peragendum presens 
non fuerit Episcopus). capa decenti 
amictus sacra celebrare obstringitur.”’ ] 

i [“in his capitulorum, in illis pa- 
rochorum.”’— Wek. } 

k [*quemadmodum antiqui Impe- 
ratores S. Synodorum decreta legibus 
suis confirmaverunt.”—Wek. | 

1 (Cap, ix. in ed. Wek. sic legitur: 
‘Sunt quidem apud nos, preter Per- 
duelles Papistas, Anabaptistarum etiam 
reliquiz, Libertinorum quorundam 











RELIGIONE, DISCIPLINA, SACRISQUE RITIBUS. 369 


sectarum et seditiosorum hominum multitudo maxima non ita pridem 
apud nos in apertam rebellionem, cruentas cedes, barbara latrocinia, 
universe religionis Christiane contemptum, et (quod vel dictu horri- 
bile nimis est) in ipsum regicidium eruperunt. Sunt enim genus 
hominum, tum Divinis tum humanis legibus (inaudita a seculis auda- 
cid atque infernali prorsus superbid et iniquitate) maxime repugnan- 
tium, qui, nisi principym ope tempestive supprimantur, omnia pas- 
sim, qua late pateant Christianorum Regna et Ecclesi, brevi pessun- 
dabunt : quanquam satis jam ex religionis et reipublicze nostra con- 
stitutionibus orbis terrarum videt, nos quidem nec ipsos peperisse, 
nec aluisse, nec docuisse. Sed lolium facile nimis cum frumento 
nasci solet, et palea cum grano. 

Interim, Aliud est quod docemus, aliud quod sustinemus; et, do- 
nec emendare valeamus, tolerare compellimur. 


multitudo magna nimis, hominum  dustria, tempestive supprimantur, om- 
genus seditiosum, tum Regie tum nia pessundabunt. Quamquam satis 
Ecclesiastice potestati invidentium, jam orbis terrarum videt, nos quidem 
ac utriusque possessionibus inhian- nec illos peperisse, nec aluisse, nec 
tium: qui, nisi legum ope, Principis docuisse. Sed lolium,’” &c. } 
auctoritate, et ministrorum suorum in- 


COSIN. Bb 





INDEX CAPITUM. 


Cap. 1. Perpetua Religionis Norma. 5 : ᾿ - 

Car. If. Sacra Dei Scriptura 

Car. III. Antiqua Fidei Symbola 

Car. IV. Quatuor prima Concilia 

Car. V. Quinque priorum Patrum secula . 2 - : 

Cap. VI. Hereses repudiate 5 - - 5 . 

Car. VII. Novitates-rejecte, aceea lee depulsz, et religionis 
corruptele sanate 

Cap. VIII. Religio prisca, vere Christiana et t stabilita 

Car. 1X. Ordo Ecclesiasticus : C ς : Ὁ 

Cap. Χ, Consecratio et munus Episcoporum 

Cap. XI. Ordinatio et munus Presbyterum . 

Car. XII. Ordinatio et munus Diaconorum 


Cap. XIII. Liturgia sacra . : 3 . 5 . 
Cap. XIV. Officium matutinum et vespertinum 
Cap. XV. Litanie . . 


Car. XVI. Officium sancti Tuchafistie 

Car. XVII. Baptismus 

Cap. XVIII. Confirmatio 

Car. XIX. Matrimonium 

Cae. XX. Visitatio infirmorum Ξ 5 : . ° 
Car. XXI. Sepultura mortuorum . 


IN APPENDICE. 


Capa ἘΠ DiesHestinnr - - - 

Cap. II. Dies jejuniorum . 3 . : - 

Cap. III. Dies abstinentie . : . 

Cap. ΤΥ. Angliz divisio in suas saatee Ecclesiasticas 5 

Cap. V. Cantuariensis provincie diceceses . - δ 

Cap. VI. Eboracensis provincie diceceses_ . 3 Ξ . 
Car. VII. Ecclesiz cathedrales - . τ . . 
Car. VIII. Synodi provinciales ; 2 


Car. IX. Sect regniet religionis hostes  . : Ξ 


358 
359 
ibid, 
360 
ibid. 
361 
ibid. 
362 
ibid. 





TOUCHING THE SUPREMACY, AND HEAD OF 
THE CHURCH. 


[ The following Paper is preserved among the Harleian MSS. in the Brit. Mus., 
Num. 750, 15,—Plut. xxxvi. H. p. 290.] 


DR. COSIN. 


Mr. Rosson and 1 discoursing of the canon-law, the Ecelesie 
question was put, from whom the power of excommunica- “P"" 
tion proceeded. I answered, that we had our power there- 
of from Christ. And Mr. Pleasans interposing, that we had 
it from the king, and that he might excommunicate as well 
as we, this I said: That no man (who understood himself) 
had ever said so: that our Church disclaimeth it?, and that 
it is a slander laid upon us by the papists®: that the exercise 
thereof was under the king, but the power of it only from 
Christ, and that by virtue of Holy Orders; and, lastly, that 
our kings had never taken any such power upon them. 

The second question (upon occasion of the former) being 
made by Mr. Pleasans, how the king, then, could be said to 
be ‘Head of the Church,’ I demanded of him, who it was 
that said it? and answered, that the laws said it not, that the 
canons said it not, that our best writers said it not, (at least, 
in that sense* wherein he urged it ;) that Queen Elizabeth re- 
fused it’, that our kings since her time® liked it not, that the 
Oath of Supremacy itself expressed it not, that in my judg- 
ment it was unfit for us private men to set forth any other 
title of the king than what he himself or his state had or- 
dained; that the style was the more mishked, (howsoever in 


a (See Articles of Religion, agreed 


the end of this paper. ] 
upon in Convocation, A.D. 1562; art. 


* Anno i. Reg. Eliz. Statut. i. [item, 


xxxvii. Of the Civil Magistrates. | 

b [See ‘An Admonition to simple 
men deceived by malicious,’ annexed 
to Q. Elizabeth’s Injunctions, A.D. 
1559, ed. Lond. 1584.—See also the 
references at the end of this paper. | 

e (Conf. 24 Hen. VIII. α 12; 26 
Hen. VIII. c. 1; and 85 Hen. VIII. 
cap. 3; 1 Eliz. c. 1. § 2; 5 Eliz. c. 1. 
§ 14; &c.—Statutes at Large, ed. 4to. 
Lond. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 193, 350, 501, 
525, &c.—See also Canons 1, 2, as 
agreed upon in Convocation, A.D. 
1603; and the writers referred to at 


5 Eliz. c. i. ὃ 14; item, ‘Admonition,’ 
cited above.—There is also a letter of 
Sir Francis Walsingham’s in the Ca- 
bala, Lond. 1663, p. 407, in which he 
says, that the Oath of Supremacy ‘“ was 
altered by her Majesty (Q. Elizabeth) 
into a more grateful form, the harsh- 
ness of the name and appellation of 
Supreme Head removed,’’ &c. 

* [See ‘Apology’ of K. James I. p. 
47. Lond. 1609. ]} 

* [See 1 Eliz. c. 1, ubi supr.; also 
the Admonition annexed to the In- 
junctions, &c. | 


Bb2 


372 


TOUCHING THE SUPREMACY, 


a general sense it might be well enough interpreted, ) because 
the pope’s flatterers had given it unto him, and because it 
doth most properly belong unto Christ, who was the only 
Head of His Church precisely taken, which is but one Body 
itself, and so not capable of many heads: and, lastly, that 
they did but cause themselves either to be pitied or con- 
temned whosoever did affirm, that we gave power of ad- 
ministering the Sacraments or excommunication unto princes 
themselves; whom nevertheless we acknowledged (and that 
this I would be as ready to maintain as any man) to be su- 
preme governors both of Church and State®; and that by this 
power of supreme dominion they might command churchmen 
at any time to do their office, or punish them for their neglect 
of it. I added further to Mr. Robson, saying, that external 
co-action, indeed, whereby men were forced to obey the in- 
terdictions of the Church, was from the king: but the power 
of spiritual jurisdiction itself was from Christ, who had given 
it to His Apostles, and they to their successors in Ordination. 
This was the utmost of that I said; and I think I should 
have betrayed the truth, if I had said less: the whole com- 
pany, or the best of them, often interposing and assenting to 
what I spoke, unless it were Mr. Pleasans and Geo. Walton, 
whose only difference from me then was, that the Acts of 
Parliament" styled the king “ head of the Church ;” where- 
upon we laid a wager of half a crown for a pair of gloves, all 
the whole company bearing witness thereof. But, as for any 
irreverent words of his majesty, my most gracious lord and 
sovereign, they yet did never, and never shall they, come 
either out of my mouth, or into my heart. 


JO. COSIN. 


De titulo supremi capitis Ecclesiz, vide 


Bp. Jewell’s Defence of the Apology, p. 570; (Par. 


s [See the first article of Subscrip- 
tion, in the 36th Canon, &c. | 

h{See the Statutes cited above.-— 
Cosin read this title, as claimed by 
Henry VIII., according to the tenor 
of the ‘Authentic Histories and Chroni- 
cles,’”’ referred to in the first cited of 
these Acts, and which set forth only 
the constitutional headship and supre- 
macy justly belonging to the kings of 


England, and not that exorbitant au- 
thority in spiritual matters which was 
afterwards disclaimed by Q. Eliz. and 
K. James.—Conf. K. Edward the Con- 
fessor’s statute de Regis Officio, as re- 
ceived by William the Conqueror, in 
Roger de Hoveden’s Annals, ap. Re- 
rum Angl. Scriptores, &c., ed. Fran- 
cof. 1601, p. 604. 











AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 373 


VI. chap. ii. divis. 1, 2, 3; p. 569,—574.—Works, Lond. 
1609. ] 

The view of the Pope’s Bull, p. 14. [See ‘A view of a 
seditious Bull, sent into England from Pius Quintus, bishop 
of Rome, 1569,’ &c., in Jewell’s Works. | 

Anno i. Reg. Eliz. Stat. i. [Statutes at Large, ed. Lond. 
1786, vol. ii. p. 501.—Conf. 5. Eliz. c. i. § 14, ubi supr. p. 
525; item, Queen Elizabeth’s Admonition annexed to the 
Injunctions of 1559, published in a Collection of Articles, 
Injunctions, Canons, &c., chiefly in the times of K. Edw. VLI., 
Q. Elizabeth, K. James, and K. Charles I., ed. Lond. 1584, 
pp- 83, 84.]—Et Cambden. in ejus vita. [Vid. Annales Re- 
rum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum, regnante Elizabetha, ad 
ann. Salutis 1589, Gul. Camdeno auctore, sub ann. 1559, 
§ Regine in ecclesiasticis auctoritas explicata; ed. Lond. 
1625, p. 39,—Conf. pp. 5, 25, 26.] 

Bp. Andrewes’ Tortura Torti, p. 170, 388; [ed. 4to. Lond. 
1609.—See also p. 380.] 

Reynolds’ Conference, cap. i. di. 2. p. 52. in 4to. [See 
‘The Summe of the Conference between John Rainoldes and 
John Hart, touching the Head and the Faith of the Church,’ 
chap. x. Of the Prince’s Supremacie, ed. 4to. Lond. 1609, 
p- 589. ] 

Burhill contra Becanum pro Torturé Torti, cap. 10. per 
totum. [Vid. Roberti Burhilli contra Mart. Becani Contro- 
versiam Anglicanam, &c., Assert. pro jure regio, &c., cap. iv., 
ed. 8vo. Lond. 1613, p. 50, et seq. ; item, cap. v., Vi., passim. ] 

Bp. Barl., Ep. Lyncoln., contra Parsons, p. 207, et seqq. 
[Vid. ‘An Answer to a Catholic Englishman (so by himself 
entituled) who, without a name, passed his censure upon the 
Apology made by the right high and mighty Prince James, 
by the grace of God King of Great Britain, France, and Ire- 
land, &c., for the Oath of Allegiance, &ec., by the Bp. of 
Lincoln,’ (Dr. Will. Barlow,) paragr. iii. § 6, et seqq., ed. 
Ato. Lond. 1609, p. 204, et seqq. | 

Politeiam Eccl. Angl. § 3. per totum. [Vid. Richardt Cosini 
Ecclesize Anglicanz Polit., in Tabulis digest., ed. 4to. Oxoniz 
1624, cap. i. tab. i. A, B.—See these Tables as published by 
Wekett with the Relig. Regni Angliz, tab. i. De suprema 
potestate regia. | 

Montague’s Gagg, p. 68, 69; [ed. 4to. Lond. 1624.] 


PAPERS CONCERNING THE COLLATION OF 
BISHOPS. 





[The following Letters, and Form of Collation, are printed among Lord Claren- 
don’s State Papers, ed. Oxford, 1786, tom. iii. append. p. ci., cil, cill,—For 
the circumstances of the Church of England at this time, with respect to Her 
Episcopate, see the Preface to Hammond’s Miscellaneous Theological Works, 
ed. Oxford, 1849, pp. xviil., xix. ] 


“SIR EDWARD HYDE TO DR. COSIN. 


Concernine Dr. Duncon, . . . . The sum is: there are two, who are 
willing to come over to perform their parts ; and there are three, who 
are willing to perform all things there which are requisite : some per- 
sons are ready to receive the Order there, and others are capable of 
being persuaded to come over and take it here. There was some pro- 
mise made to him of £200 per ann., which others hoped to improve 
to £600, but I do not hear that one penny is returned, nor who have 
undertaken to settle that province: in both cases, two things are held 
necessary to be done by the king, both under the Great Seal :—a colla- 
tion of such persons whom he intends for Bishops, and a mandate to the 
rest to do their office ; and both these instruments to be kept on this 
side the sea, and intimation to be only sent thither. Common and 
civil lawyers were agreed in the point : but the forms, (which is an essen- 
tial part, and principally desired,) the good Doctor had not leisure to 
stay for; but says he can send for them, which I have written to 
him to do, as I likewise desire you, and that they may be sent to me 
very perfect, that the clerk may have nothing to do but to transcribe 
them to a letter: for all secrecy is necessary. The king is resolved to 
despatch it one way or other this winter ; therefore I pray send me 
your advice, as particularly as you can, and tell me (as your friend) 
what part you will be content to act yourself. Yours, το. 


Cologne, July 27, 1655.” 








“DR. COSIN ΤῸ SIR EDWARD HYDE. 


Sir, 


Dr. Duncons tells me by his letters from Saumur, that he 
hath written twice to Mr. Barrow®, both about the collation 
and the contribution. If he delays writing to you, it 15 be- 
cause he hath no answer from him; who, together with Mr. 
Phil. Warwick‘, are the two only persons upon whom he re- 
lieth. The mandate I send you here enclosed, as I drew it 
up three weeks since, with all the cautions and supplements 
that the condition and necessity of these times required to 
be used and inserted into it. And some clauses there are in 
it, (as you will mark in perusing it,) that will be needful to 
put into the collation itself, which is here supposed to have 
been passed before. I have used Dr. Clare’s name‘, and 
mentioned the bishopric of Chester, (where he is beneficed,) 
for form’s sake only, which you may alter or let stand in 
the letters patent that are to be engrossed at his Majesty’s 


* [This was in all probability Dr. 
Eleazer Duncon, a deprived preben- 
dary of Durham, who had retired to 
the continent, and was living at Paris 
in 1651. (See Evelyn’s Diary, vol. i. 
p- 249.) He must not be confounded 
with another sequestered divine of his 
name who wrote the life of Lady Falk- 
land, We have no record of his parent- 
age, but from the mention of Saumur 
it seems probable that he was connected 
with, and possibly a son of Dr. Monk 
Duncan, a Scotch physician, who was 
a professor at Saumur, and died in 
1640.—Dr. Duncon may be the same 
also with Dr. Duncom, mentioned by 
Cosin in a letter dated Paris, Aug. 28, 
1659, and addressed to Sancroft at Ge- 
neva; in which he says, “Οἵ Dr. Dun- 
com’s purpose to do anything, either 
about our ordination, or other subject, 
I never heard; and I give the less 
credit to that report, which you had of 
him, because I have not heretofore ob~ 
served any inclination in him to bend 
his studies that way.’’] 

» (Mr. Barrow is the same person 
with Dr. Isaac Barrow, and was much 
employed in conveying messages be- 
tween the royalists during the usurpa- 


tion. (See MSS. letters of Hammond 
to Sheldon in Brit. Mus.) ] 

e¢ [Mr. Philip Warwick, afterwards 
Sir Philip Warwick, was one of the 
most faithful and constant attendants 
on the king, even to the last, but his- 
tory loses sight of him altogether during 
the interval between the king’s death 
and the restoration. | 

4 [ Dr. Clare was one of “ the Clergy 
who attended the English court in 
France at this time.’?’ He is men- 
tioned by Evelyn, as having preached 
at Paris, in Sir Richard Browne’s 
chapel, Noy. 12, 1651, ‘on Gen. xxviii. 
20, 21, 22, upon Jacob’s vow, which he 
appositely applied: it being the first 
Sunday his Majesty came to chapel 
after his escape.’’—See Evelyn’s Me- 
moirs, ed. Lond. 1819, vol. i. p. 258; 
also a note at the foot of p. 257, where, 
together with Dr. Clare, the names of 
several others are mentioned, as occa- 
sionally officiating in Sir R. Browne's 
chapel, viz. The Bishop of Galloway, 
Dr. Geo. Morley, Dr.Cosin, Dr. Stewart, 
Dr. Earle, Dr. Clare, D. Wolley, Mr. 
Crowder, Dr. Lloyd, Mr. Hamilton, 
Dr. Duncan. } 


976 CONCERNING THE COLLATION OF BISHOPS. 


pleasure. My chief care was to give a reason, why the ordi- 
nary course of election by Dean and Chapter is not observed, 
and to save the Bishops, that shall be employed [in] the con- 
secration of another, from any penalties of the laws which 
otherwise they might incur, and from the exceptions that 
may be taken against the validity of their act hereafter: 
which the king’s power, and dispensation with those penal 
laws, will sufficiently silence: for after this manner they 
proceeded in the consecrating of new Bishops at the be- 
ginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign; and we cannot have a 
better pattern. 

I know not who hath changed your mind, upon a private 
consultation that you have lately had about this affair¢: but 
you were once resolved to hold constant to the course of 
England, and not to make Ireland our way to come thither. 
For who will, or who can with a good conscience, accept of 
a consecration to a bishopric there, where he never intends 
to come, or exercise the office of a Bishop? For I believe 
there will hardly be found any in England that be otherwise 
minded: which is a stronger and a more unanswerable ob- 
jection, than any that can be pretended against the other 
way, which we have all this time attended and prosecuted ac- 
cording to the mandate that I here send to you. Truly, sir, 
should this new way through Ireland be taken, we shall not 
know how to avoid those objections against ourselves, which 
we have so often heretofore, and so justly, brought against 
some others. For what difference will there be between a 
man, that always intends to live in England, to be made a 
Bishop for Ireland, and one that never meant to live out of 


4 [Whosoever he was, that advised I know no one particular, that con- 


the consecration of the proposed new 
Bishops to Irish sees, so objectionable 
a step appears to have met with no 
countenance from the Prelates who 
were to consecrate them. The Bishop 
of Salisbury (Dr. Brian Duppa) seems 
to have thought it important. that 
they should not even be consecrated 
in foreign parts. An early hint of 
this, to some unknown correspondent, is 
given in an interesting letter of his, 
dated Richm., Feb. 6, 1655, wherein 
he says: “ You judge not amiss. to 
think me full of troubled thoughts..... 


cerns our expiring Church more than 
the care of a succession, in which care 
you must necessarily have a part: and 
I shall with great earnestness expect, 
when I may have the possibility of 
seeing you here; for much depends 
upon you. I shall say no more, but 
join with you in your prayers for all 
that is, and ought to be, dear to us; 
and so remain 

Your very affectionate true friend, 

Br. Sar.” 

See Tanner MSS. vol. 52, num. 105, 
al. 118.] 














CONCERNING THE COLLATION OF BISHOPS. Yall 


Paris, or some other place in France, to be made a Bishop of 
Corinth, or Chalcedon, among the Greeks. In our defence 
of the Apology for the Church of England’, (which Bishop 
Jewell set forth for us,) we had great reason to say, that it 
was a void act, a mock, and a vanity, in the Pope, to make 
his Cardinals (as he doth still) Bishops of Jerusalem and 
Antioch, &c., at Rome: from whence as he intended not to 
send them, so was it not their purpose, that had the titles of 
those and other such bishoprics in the East countries, ever to 
repair to them. In the Council of Trent there was a Bishop 
of Armagh‘, and another of Worcester’, consecrated at Rome 
upon the same score, which remains as an indelible blot and 
stain upon their names at this day. And shall not we also 
by this way of Ireland run into the same errors? I do there- 
fore make it my humble and earnest suit, both to his majesty 
and to you, that the old and the safe way may be kept, which 
will justify itself, and preserve us free from those exceptions, 
that otherwise, I am afraid, we shall never be able to answer. 
For that purpose I have addressed this mandate to you; and 
I confess it would not a little grieve me to have lost my 
labour in it, and the expectation we have had to see the effect 
of it this long time together. The mandate is directed to all 
the Bishops of England and Ireland, or at least to four of 
them: for so many there must be, according to the statute, 
(25 H. VIII. c. 20",) to consecrate a Bishop, when there is 
no Archbishop in England. 

I beseech God long and well to preserve you; which shall 
be the continual prayer of your most faithful and humble 
servant, 


ἢ T 
Paris, Nov. 5, 1655. T. [J.] COSIN. 


An original. 


e [Part vi. § A Council General, 277; et num. exe., p. 274.— Conf. 
ed. Lond. 1609, p, 625. | Jewell’s Def. ubi supr.; item, Athen, 
£ [This was Robertus Venantius Oxoniens., ed. Bliss, Lond, 1815, tom. 
Scotus.—See Pet. Suav., Hist. Cone. 11. p. 794.] 
Trid., lib. ii. p. 109.] h [ὃ 5.—Statutes at Large, ed. 4to. 
ε [Richard Pates.—See Cosin’s Hist. Lond. 1786, vol. ii. p. 182. ] 
Can. Script., num. exciv., vol. ili. p. 


378 CONCERNING THE COLLATION OF BISHOPS. 


FORM OF COLLATION. 


Carotus Dei gratii Angliz, Scotie, Francie, et Hiberniz 
Rex, Fidei Defensor, &c., omnibus, ad quos he Literz nos- 
tre Patentes pervenerint, salutem in Domino. 

Collatio Episcopatuum est jus regium, quo progenitores 
nostri Anglorum Reges ab exordio nascentis Ecclesiz in suis 
regnis positi sunt. Sciatis ‘igitur quod, cum in regno nostro 
Angliz sedes episcopalis Cestrensis, per mortem Reverendi 
in Christo Patris, Johannis Bridgeman/, ultimi Incumbentis et 
Episcopi ibidem, nuper vacaverit, Pastorisque solatio et cura 
jam destituta sit; Decanus vero et Capitulum ejusdem Ec- 
clesize Cathedralis, magni iniquitate temporum ac malorum 
hominum injurid impediti, nullam hodie id unum conveniendi 
potestatem habeant, ut Licentid nostra Βοριὰ muniti alium 
virum idoneum a nobis commendatum sibi in Episcopum et 
Pastorem eligant, pro more et forma consuetis: Nos, ad cujus 
Patronatum dicta sedes pleno et regio jure pertinere dignos- 
citur, successioni episcopali et orthodox religioni in eAddem 
conservandz sedulo prospicientes, dilectum nobis in Christo 
Andream Clare, sacree Theologiz professorem, virumque tam 
doctriné quam probitate insignem, atque e Capellanis nostris 
Ordinariis unum, in Episcopum et Pastorem ejusdem Eccle- 
siz nominandum, eligendum, et constituendum fore duxi- 
mus ; sicut ipsum per preesentes nominamus, constituimus, 
et pro electo haberi volumus, atque auctoritate nostra regia 
confirmamus. 

Insuper de gratia nostra speciali, et ex certa scientid ac 
motu nostris, dedimus et concessimus, ac per preesentes da- 
mus, concedimus, et conferimus, pro nobis, hzeredibus, et 
successoribus nostris, prenominato Andrez Clare, ob singu- 
larem dilectionem, quam penes illum gerimus, eundem inte- 
grum Episcopatum Cestrensem, una cum omnibus et singulis 
suis Juribus, Przerogativis, Preeeminentis, Jurisdictionibus, 


1 [Dr. Bridgeman was father to Mr., 
afterwards Sir Orlando Bridgeman, one 
of the King’s Commissioners in the 
Treaty at Uxbridge, &c. (See Claren- 
don’s Hist., book vi., viii., tom. ii. pp: 
111, 448, 453.) He had been chaplain 


to K. James, became Bishop of Chester 
in 1618, and died in the year 1652, 
aged 77 years.—See Fasti Oxonienses, 
vol. i. col. 286; and Athenz, vol. iv. 
coll. 863, 864.—Conf. Walker’s Suffer- 
ings of the Clergy, par. ii. p. 10.] 


eats 


τ ee 


eT χεοααθθι τον ΣΕ λνς 


CONCERNING THE COLLATION OF BISHOPS. 379 


Redditibus, Proficiis, Domibus, Maneriis, Terris, Tenementis, 
Decimis, Pensionibus, Pertinentiis, et Dependentiis quibus- 
cunque, in tam amplis, modo et forma, prout cum tenuit, vel 
tenere debuit, Reverendus Pater Johannes Bridgeman preedic- 
tus. Atque, ut hee Nominatio, Concessio, et Collatio nostra 
pleniorem sortiatur effectum, Licentiam przfato Andrez faci- 
mus, ut a quatuor vel pluribus Episcopis infra regna nostra 
aut alibi constitutis, nobisque fidelibus, et vera religione con- 
junctis, benedictionem et consecrationem suam in Ordinem 
Episcopalem, secundum formam et ritum Kcclesize Anglicanze 
liberé accipiat. 

In cujus rei testimonium hasce Literas nostras fieri feci- 
mus Patentes, teste meipso, die mensis 
anno Regni nostri sexto, annoque Domini nostri millesimo 
sexcentesimo quinquagesimo quinto.” 


“ARTICLES OF ENQUIRY, 


EXHIBITED TO THE NINTH PREBENDARY* OF THE CATHE- 
DRAL CHURCH OF DURHAM IN THE THIRD EPISCOPAL 
VISITATION OF THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, 
JOHN, LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM, ANNO DOMINI, 1668. 


[These Articles are preserved among the Tanner manuscripts, in the Bodleian 
Library, vol. xcii. p. 6.] 


1. Impriis, Whether are the monitions and injunctions 
duly observed, which at the conclusion of our two last visi- 
tations of this Church were given to the Dean and Chapter 
thereof under our episcopal seal? And are the same injunc- 
tions recorded in your Registry, and safely preserved in your 
Treasury, to the end that both Mr. Dean, and every one of 
the Chapter, and other members of this Church, (as far as 
they are concerned in them,) may take knowledge, and ren- 
der a due account of them from time to time, when they 
shall be called thereunto respectively, as now they are ? 

2. Item, Do you know that either Mr. Dean, or any of 
the Prebendaries, Minor Canons, or other officers or minis- 
ters of this Church, have not duly observed the statutes and 
ordinances thereof, not altered by the laws of the land, as 
the same do respectively concern them ? 

3. Item, Is the Churchyard wall adjoining to the Palace- 
green finished in comely manner according to the order 
given for that purpose? and is the Churchyard wall made 
level, decently kept, and freed from beasts, and all other an- 
noyances and disorders? And is Wakelm’s partition-wall 
there taken away; or who opposeth it? 

4. Item, Is the aisle on the north side of the Cathedral 
Church, tending to the Consistory, freed from rain? and is 
the Consistory itself freed from rain? And are the leads 


k [scil. Sancroft. ] 








ARTICLES OF ENQUIRY. 981 


there in good repair? And is the consistorial seat made up 
as it ought to be? 

5. Item, Is there any acknowledgment made in writing, 
or other satisfaction given by Mr. Dean and the Chapter, for 
the ground taken from the Bishop’s Palace-green at the 
late new building of the Grammar School belonging to this 
Cathedral Church ? 

6. Item, Are the uncomely one and coarse mats, lately 
used in your Church at the administration of the Holy Com- 
munion for such persons as usually resort thither without 
the rails, taken away, and others more comely put in their 
place, and decenily covered, as heretofore hath been accus- 
tomed? And are the partitions on each hand of these forms 
under the two arches of the Church next the said rails well 
framed in joiner’s work, and there set up for the better 
keeping out of the wind and cold, which otherwise do 
many times molest and annoy the communicants ? 

7. Lastly, Do you know any thing else concerning the 
state or honour of this Church, or concerning any member 
belonging to it, fit to be declared and presented to us for 
the amendment thereof in this our visitation ? 

Hereunto you are to make your special and peculiar an- 
swer! (in writing under your hand sealed up) by virtue of 
your oaths taken at your admission and installation to your 
prebend in this Church. 


July the 30th, 1668. Jo. DuRESME. 


{After Sancroft’s Answer to the foregoing Articles, the following Injunctions 
are found in the Tanner MSS. ubi supra. | 


DIE JOVIS, VIZ. 277 DIE MENSIS AUGUSTI ANNO DOMINI 
1668°9, IN DOMO CAPITULARI ECCLESI# CATHEDRALIS 
DUNELMENSIS. 


Insunctiones et Monita que sequuntur tradita sunt De- 
cano et Capitulo dicte Ecclesiz Cathedralis per Reveren- 
1 [This Sancroft excuses himself from diately follows these Articles of En- 


doing, upon the plea of his non-resi-  quiry, in the Tanner MSS. ] 
dence.—See his Answer, which imme- 











989 ARTICLES OF ENQUIRY. 


dum in Christo Patrem ac Dominum Johannem Episcopum 
Dunelmensem, qui dictz Ecclesiz Cathedralis suze Visitati- 
onem/ eodem die determinavit et finivit. 


1. Imprimis, curent diligenter et sedulo, ut loca Minorum 
Canonicorum in hic Ecclesié jam vacantia, quantocius fieri 
poterit, ad laudem Dei et solennem divmorum in Choro 
Ecclesize celebrationem suppleantur : 

2. Secundo, ut opera bene ab iis inchoata, tam infra quam 
extra Ecclesiam, et nominatim cir[c]a Coemiterium Septen- 
trionale, perficiantur : 

3. Ut locus in Occidentali parte Ecclesiz, qui dicitur 
Galilzea, sive Consistorium, debite reparetur, et sartum tec- 
tum conservetur, ibidemque septum circa tumbam domini 
Thome Langley preclarissimi olim Episcopi Dunelmensis 
restituatur, et de eisdem lapidibus marmoreis, qui illine ab 
iniquis hominibus non ita pridem sublati erant, fabricetur : 

4. Ut locus, qui dicitur Thesaurarium, in Claustro, ab 
omni pulvere, aranearum telis, et aliis sordibus atque im- 
munditiis purgetur; chartzeque, et scripta ibidem posita, vel 
intra vel extra loculos suos in ordinem, classes, et titulos 
proprios, debito modo redigantur, atque in loculis propriis 
reponantur, et per scribam aliquem idoneum et eruditum 
registrentur : 

5. Ut Canonici Majores, et eorum quilibet gui contra 
Statuta Ecclesiz sese absentant, per Decanum et Capitulum 
quamprimum moneantur, ut nisi ad Ecclesiam accedant, at- 
que debitam in eidem residentiam observent, Quotidianis 
et Dividendis omnibus, que ad Ecclesiam sive alios Resi- 
dentiarios pertinent, omnino careant: (qui enim emolumen- 


tum alicujus loci percipiunt, onera etiam ejusdem loci sen- 
tire et ferre debent * :) 


6. Ut, quoties aliquis Preebendarius civitatem Dunelmen- 
sem ultra quindenam relicturus sit, non prius id faciat quam 
Decanum de rebus Ecclesiz et Capitulis tenendis consuluit : 


i [This was Cosin’s “ last personal reason ;’’ and as inculcating a practice, 


Visitation of the Dean and Chapter.’— which is “conformable to good con- 
See Basire’s Dead Man’s Real Speech, science and equity: ..... foritisa 
Ῥ. 45.] rule in law, Beneficium propter officium.” 


_ * [Basire commends this fifth In- _—Ubi supr., p. 46.] 
junction, as “grounded upon right 





ARTICLES OF ENQUIRY. 383 


7. Ut Capitula, si quoquo modo fieri poterit, singulis 
quindenis secundum Statuta Ecclesiz teneantur et cele- 
brentur : 

8. Ut nulli, nulleve, sive e famihd Decani aut aliquorum 
Prebendariorum, vel aliorum quorumcunque, permittantur, 
vel cum victualium aut aliarum rerum oneribus, sarcinis, 
vel gestaminibus quibuscunque, per Ecclesiam transire, sed 
modis omnibus id facere impediantur, et, si necesse fuerit, 
ipsa etiam victualia, onera, sarcinz, gestamina, lis auferan- 
tur, et ad prisonam mittantur inter pauperes ibidem dis- 
tribuenda : 

9. Ut porte omnes infra septum Ecclesiz diligenter una- 
quique nocte ad horam nonam per janitorem Ecclesiz oc- 
cludantur ; omnia vero portica queecunque in domibus sive 
Decani sive Canonicorum majorum vel minorum immuren- 
tur, pro securitate omnium qui infra septum Ecclesize degunt 
et commorantur : 

10. Postremo, ut Injunctiones et Monita nostra, que in 
prima Visitatione hujus Ecclesize Decano et Capitulo sub 
sigillo nostro Episcopali tradita fuerunt, de tempore in tem- 
pus debite observentur. 


QUERIES PUT BY THE BP. OF D. TO THE 
CLERGY OF HIS DIOCESE’. 


This paper is preserved among the Smith manuscripts, in the Bodleian Library, 
pap Ρ 8 pts, y 
vol. xxvii. num. 1.] 


1. WHETHER or no a subject is bound in conscience to 
comply with the commands or reasonable intimations of the 
pleasure of his Prince in all cases, where he is not bound in 
conscience to the contrary ? 

2. Whether a man may not comply with his Prince in 
many things, which are very inexpedient, nay prejudicial to 
the well-being of his Church, (provided the being of it be 
secured,) if the King doth press thereunto, and we have no 
way to avoid the command, but by being disobedient to it? 

3. Whether the reformed Church of England was not an 
established Church before the enacting of the penal laws? 
- and whether a man may not with a good conscience consent 
to the abrogating them, rather than provoke the King, (on 
whose favour, next under God, we do depend,) since it may 
tend to the destruction of its being ? 


1 [These queries were probably claration of Liberty of Conscience”’ 
issued about the time when the ‘‘De- was put forth, i.e. Mar. 16, 1672.) 





LETTERS TO DR. RICHARD WATSON™. 


FIRST LETTER, 


FOR MY VERY LOVING FRIEND, MR. WATSON, AT THE PRINCE’S 
COURT, IN JERSEY, 


Sir, 

Tne letter that Major Fontane brought from you was very 
welcome to me; the rather for that I had enquired after you 
of many, and could never hear of you before, since the dis- 
persion" at Bristol. For, though I find your name now in the 
review of one of Dr. Clare’s letters, yet, when I read that 
letter at first, I tock it to have been Dr. Wadson, from 
whom I had (not long since) received a letter out of the 
West. But I am glad it is you, and that you have so fair 
a subsistence for the present under so good a lord’. What 
will become of us all for the future, our Lord above knows ; 
to whose providence and goodness we must recommend our- 
selves. 

You say right. Our Church is as much misunderstood and 
misconstrued here abroad, as it is misused and maligned at 
home; and I have had experience enough of both. The 
truth is, they are here so exceeding uncharitable, and some- 
what worse, that I know not how any man, who understands 
himself, and makes a conscience of what he does, can enter 
into any communion with them in those doctrines and prac- 
tices which they hold necessary to salvation, and wherein 
they make their essential note of difference, their religion, 


™ [For an account of Dr, Watson, _ bellion, B. ix., ed. Oxon. 1703, tom. ii. 
who was chaplain to the Duke of York, __p. 532. ] 
see Fasti Oxonienses, vol. i. col. 519, ο The Lord Hopton. [With whom 
and vol. ii. col. 263.) he continued in voluntary exile, until 
" [About the middle of September, his lordship’s death. } 
1645.—See Clarendon’s Hist. of Re- 


COSIN, 


ce 





386 LETTERS TO DR. RICHARD WATSON. 


and their Church, to consist. And, that I may answer your 
demand in brief, (for they say you are all to come hither,) it 
is far less safe to join with these men, that alter the credenda, 
the vitals of religion, than with those that meddle only with 
the agenda, and rules of religion, if they meddle no farther. 
And, where it is not in our power to help it, there is no 
doubt but, in these things, God will accept the will for the 
deed, if that will (without our assent or approbation to the 
contrary) be preserved entire: though in the meanwhile we 
suffer a little for it, oppression must not make us leave our 
own Church. They of Geneva are to blame in many things, 
and defective in some: they shall never have my approbation 
of their doings, nor let them have yours. Yet I do not see, 
that they have set up any new articles of faith under pain of 
damnation to all the world, that will not receive them for 
such articles; and you know whose case that is. Cetera 
cum veneris, or (if you come not) in other letters, as you shall 
offer me occasion. In the meanwhile I will be glad to hear 
of your resolution still to be constant in the maintenance of 
the ancient Catholic Faith and government of the Church of 
Christ, which the Church of England hath professed and 
taught us, though now there be a cloud and storm upon it: 
as upon what Church hath there not been, more or less, in 
the several ages of the world ? 

If you know of any thing fit for me to hear concerning our 
old friends in England, you will do me a favour to impart 
it to 

your assured loving friend, 


S. Germ. Jun. 19, 1646, JM. 








LETTERS TO DR. RICHARD WATSON, 387 


SECOND LETTER. 


FOR MY VERY GOOD AND WORTHY FRIEND, MR. RICHARD 
WATSON, CHAPLAIN TO MY LORD HOPTON, AT JERSEY. 


Sir, 

I must ask your pardon, that you hear no oftener from me 
by my own hand, (for by others, if they do me right, you 
have my frequent remembrances,) assuring you, that you are 
one of those friends, upon whom I have placed a most affec- 
tionate regard. But the more I affect you, the greater de- 
sires I have, that you would not entertain the least thought 
of starting from that profession of religion, wherein you were 
so well practised at home, though it be disgraced and perse- 
cuted there never so much. The time hath been, wherein 
good orthodox Christians have suffered more than we do, and 
continued firm and constant in their way: nor do I see any 
better way to recover our station again, than this. However, 
let it never be said, that, to revenge ourselves upon one 
enemy, we haye any mind to comply with another,—you 
know whom I mean,—an enemy as bad, if not worse than 
those that are at home. 

I would you held the same course at Jersey, and had the 
same toleration there, that we have at our Court, where we 
omit nothing that we were wont to practise in England, and 
are so far from leaving off the surplice at service, that we 
never preach any sermon without it?. And, in these our 

sermons, they of the Geneva fashion hear us, as well, and as 
often, as they of the Italian. I know not why Mr. Gatford4 
should speak so ill of Dr. Martin", and so well of me: for truly 


P [See Evelyn’s account of the ordi- bridge, see Walker’s Sufferings of the 








nation of Durell and Brevint, by the 
Bishop of Galloway, in Sir R. Browne’s 
chapple at Paris, on Trinity Sunday, 
June 12, 1650.—Diary, ed. Lond. 1819, 
tom. i. p. 244.---ἰ They were presented 
by the Dean (Cosin) in their surplices 
before the Altar;’’ &c. ] 

4 [For some account of Mr. Lyonel 
Gatford, B.D., Rector of Dennington, 
sometime fellow of Jesus College, Cam- 


Clergy, par. ii. p. 255.] 

r [Dr. Edward Martin had been do- 
mestic chaplain to Archbishop Laud, 
Master of S. John’s College, Cam- 
bridge, and Dean of Ely, &c.—Having 
been deprived of his livings, he suffered 
much for the king’s cause, and died in 
August, 1661.—See Fasti Oxon., vol. i. 
col. 400. ] 


cc2 





388 LETTERS TO DR. RICHARD WATSON. 


I know no difference between Dr. Martin and myself, but 
that we agree in all things. That I should declare Mr. Gat- 
ford for a pattern of legal conformity to all England, (unless 
it were upon his profession, that he would observe all things 
which the Governors of our Church legally commanded,) I 
hope you do not believe more than I, nor that I had any 
hand in offermg him the Mastership of Jesus College, when 
Dr. Sterne* was placed there: for at that time I was two 
hundred miles off, and had no thought of residing in the 
University, whither I was called by the King’s command 
about half a year after. 

The singing Psalms are not adjoined to our Bibles, or to 
our Liturgy, by any other authority than what the company 
of Stationers, for their own gain, have procured, either by 
their own private ordinances among themselves, or by some 
order from the privy council in Queen Elizabeth’s time’: 
authority of the Convocation, or of Parliament, (such as our 
Liturgy had,) never had they any: only the Queen, by her 
letters patent to the stationers, gave leave to have them 
printed, and allowed them (did not command them) to be 
sung in churches or private houses by the people. When 
the Liturgy was set forth, and commanded to be used, these 
Psalms were not half of them composed: no Bishop ever 
enquired of their observance, nor did ever any Judge at an 
assize deliver them in his charge; which both the one and 
other had been bound to do, if they had been set forth by 
the same authority which the Liturgy was. Besides, you 
may observe that they are never printed with the Liturgy, or 
Bible, nor ever were: but only bound up, as the stationers 
please, together with it: otherwhiles that, by this means, 
their Psalms might vent the better, and they get the more 
gain. I know not what they talk of scandalizing weak con- 
sciences; but I am as sure as you are, that many passages 
in those Psalms have been scandalous enough. These things 
(when you have just occasion) you may assert for truth ; but 


8 [Dr. Richard Sterne, who had been 60]. 433, and vol. ii. col. 336. ] 
ejected from the Mastership of Jesus t [See Heylin’s curious account of 
College, Cambridge, was (after the re- the Singing Psalms, as given by Wat- 
storation) successively Bishop of Car- son in the Deduction, published together 
lisle,and Archbishop of York. He died with these two Letters. ] 
Jan, 18, 1688.—See Fasti Oxon., vol. i. 


‘ 
a 





LETTERS TO DR. RICHARD WATSON. 389 


you need not quote any other author than yourself, and 
every man’s knowledge that hath not given up the ghost to 
the Geneva platforms. Of Mr. Crashaw", &c., I know too 
much: but Iam more glad to hear you say, that you have 
no thought of following their ungracious and fond fancies. 
God ever preserve you and me in our old way of truth : from 
which no persecution shall ever drive us; as is the confidence 
and prayer for the continuance of that resolution of your 











most affectionate friend. 


“ [Richard Crashaw, the poet, a 
fellow of Peterhouse, Cambr. Being 
thrown out of his fellowship for denying 
the Covenant, he changed his religion, 
and went beyond seas. At Paris he 
obtained letters of commendation to 
the Queen from Cowley, the poet ; and 
afterwards, journeying into Italy, by 
virtue of these letters, he became se- 
eretary to a Cardinal, and at length 


[Jo. Cosin. | 


one of the canons or chaplains of the 
rich church of our Lady at Loretto, 
where he died and was buried about 
1650. He addressed his Carmen Deo 
nostro, &c., to the Countess of Den- 
beigh.—See Fasti Oxon., vol. 11, col. 45, 
and Watt’s Bibl. Brit. sub nom.— 
Cosin seems to refer to persons who 


had left the English Church. | 


ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE*. : 


FULLER'S CHARGE ON COSIN, IN CHURCH HIST., LIB. If. 


FOL. 173. 
Super- Dr. Cosens was soon after highly accused for superstition, and unjust 
ene: proceedinys against one Mr. Smart on this occasion. The Doctor is 
on De. charged to have set up in the church of Durham a marble Altar with 
Cosin. cherubins, which cost two thousand pounds, with all the appurtenances 
thereof, namely, a cope, with the Trinity, and God the Father in the 
figure of an old man, another with the crucifix and image of Christ, 
with a red beard and blue cap. Besides, he was accused for lighting 
two hundred wax candles about the Altar on Candlemas day, for forbid- 9 
ding any Psalms to be sung before or after sermon, though making an i 
Anthem to be sung of the three kings of Colen, (by the names of) 
Gasper, Balthazar, and Melchior, and for procuring a consecrated knife 
only to cut the bread at the Communion, ἢ 
Cruel 35. Mr. Smart, a Prebendary of the Church, one of grave aspect and Ἴ 
Sa eae reverend presence, sharply inveighed in a sermon against these innova- 


tions, taking for his text: “I hate all those that hold superstitious 
vanities ; but Thy law I love.” 

36. Hereupon he was kept prisoner four months by the High Com- 
mission of York, before any articles were exhibited against him, and 
five months before any Proctor was allowed him: hence was he carried 


thought ὅσοι τ renee And, secondly, 


x (Dr. Peter Heylin, in the Appen- 
it brought into my hands the Apology 


dix to whose ‘Examen Historicum’ 


Cosin’s Answer to Fuller’s charge is 
preserved, after taking notice of certain 
reports, by which it was pretended that 
the Church Historian had a review of 
his work in hand, “fin which he was 
resolved to make some fair amends to 
truth, to correct the errors of his pen, 
and to make reparation to the injured 
Clergy,” but which reports were 
“thought at last to have somewhat in 
them of design or artifice, to stave off 
the business” of his own Animadver- 
sions, adds: ‘‘The Reader notwith- 
standing will be no loser by this delay. 
For, first, it gave me leisure and op- 
portunity of bestowing my second 


of Dr. John Cosin, Dean of Peter- 
borough, in answer to some passages 
of our present history, directed in the 
way of a Letter to one Mr. Warren, 
now deceased, with a desire to have 
them communicated to the author of 
some animadversions upon that His- 
tory, which he was credibly informed 
(by what intelligence I know not) to 
be then in readiness. I shall therefore 
do him so much right, as te communi- 
cate his papers to the public view, first 
laying down Mr. Fuller’s words, as 
they lie in his History, and then leav- 
ing Dr. Cosin to speak for himself ;’’ 
&c.—Exam. Append., p. 282. ] 





ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE. 391 


to the High Commission at Lambeth, and after long trouble remanded 
to York, fined five hundred pounds, committed to prison, ordered to 
recant, and for neglect thereof fined again, excommunicated, degraded, 
and deprived, his damage (as brought in) amounting to many thousand 
pounds. 

37. But now Mr. Rows’ of the House of Commons, bringing up the 
charge to the Lords against Dr. Cosens, termed Mr. Smart the proto- 
martyr of England in these latter days of persecution’, and large repa- 
ration was allowed to him, though he lived not long after to enjoy 
them. 

Now, though none can excuse and defend Dr. Cosens, his carriage Dr.Cosin’s 
herein, yet this must be reported to his due commendation. Some Praise. 
years after, getting over into France, he neither joined the Church of 
French Protestants at Charentown, nigh Paris, nor kept any commu- 
nion with the Papists therein, but confined himself to the Church of 
English Protestants therein ; where, by his pious living, constant pray- 
ing, and preaching, he reduced some recusants to, and confirmed more 
doubters in, the protestant religion. Many were his encounters with 
Jesuits and Priests, defeating the suspicions of his foes, and exceeding 
the expectation of his friends, in the success of such disputes. 


COSIN’S ANSWER TO THE FOREGOING CHARGE. 


Paris, April 6, 1658. 
518, 

I am glad to hear from you of your safe arrival in Eng- 
land: and I am to thank both you and other of my friends, 
that intend to vindicate me from the injury done, no less to 
truth than to myself, by a passage in Mr. Fuller’s History ; 
which I believe he inserted there (as he doth many things 
besides) upon the false reports and informations of other 
men, that were loath to let an old malicious accusation die, 
as it might well enough have done, if he had not kept it up 
still alive, and recorded it to posterity: whereof he is so 
sensible already himself, that by his own letter directed to 


Υ [This was Mr. Francis Rouse, 182. ] 
afterwards called to the Speaker's chair * [Mr. Rouse’s speech is recorded, 
in Cromwell’s first Parliament, ann. together with the Articles against Co- 
1653.—Conf. Parliamentary History of _ sin, in the Parl. Hist. Engl., vol. ix. p. 
Engl., 8vo. Lond. 1763, vol. xx. p. 233—239.] 


392 ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE. 


me, (more than a year since,) he offered to make me amends 
in the next book he writes; but he hath not done it yet*. 
Having never been acquainted with him more than by his 
books, which have many petulant, light, and indiscreet pas- 
sages in them, I know not how to trust him; and therefore, 
if the authors of the intended animadversions (which you 
mention) will be pleased to do me right, you may assure 
them there is nothing but truth in this ensuing relation. 

Mr. Smart, who had been schoolmaster, and after became 
Prebendary of Durham, was an old man of a most froward, 
fierce, and unpeaceable spirit, &e. Upon a seditious sermon 
which he preached in that church, (where, contrary to his 
duty, he had neglected to preach for seven years together 
before,) he was first questioned at Durham; from whence he 
was called to the High Commission Court at London, and 
afterwards at his own desire remitted to the same court at 
York, where, being sentenced to recant, and refusing so to do 
with great scorn, he was at last, upon his obstinacy, degraded 
from his ecclesiastical function ; and that sentence was not 
long after judicially confirmed by Judge Damport” at the 
public assizes in Durham, where he was by public sentence 
also at the common law put out of his prebend, and his 
benefices that he formerly held in that county. 

Many years following he procured a large maintenance 
for himself and his family, to the sum of 400/. per annum, 
(more worth to him than his church-profits ever were,) out 
of the peculiar contributions at London, and elsewhere, 
gathered up for silenced ministers. 

But, when the Parliament began in the year 1640, upon 
project and hope of getting more, he preferred a bill of com- 
plaint there against thirty several persons at the least, that 
is, against the High Commissioners at London, the same 
Commissioners and Prebends residentiary at York, the Dean 
and Chapter of Durham, with divers others, whereof I was 
but one, though he was pleased to set my name in the front 
of them all. From all these together he expected to recover 
and receive a greater sum of money: (for money was his 

ῇ [See p. 390, note x.] the Commons in 1640, charging them 

’ [Sir Humphrey Davenport, Lord with crimes of a high nature.—See 


Chief Baron, and one of thesix Judges, Parl. Hist. Engl., tom. ix. pp. 89, 
against whom information was laid by 464. ] 














ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE. 393 


project :) pretending that he had lost by them no less than 
thirty thousand pounds, (though he was never known to be 
worth one.) 

After his bill of complaint was carried up by a gentleman 
of the House of Commons to the House of Lords‘, among 
the rest of those persons that were accused by him, (some 
for superstition, and some for persecution,) I put in my full 
answer‘ upon oath, and declared the truth of the whole mat- 
ter: whereof Mr. Fuller taketh not any notice at all, and 
therein dealeth most unfaithfully both with me and the rea- 
der of his History: for that answer of mine is upon record 
among the rolls of Parliament, and was justified before the 
Lords, both by myself, and by the very witness® that Mr. 
Smart and his son-in-law produced there against me: where- 
upon his own lawyer (Mr. Glover‘) openly at the bar of that 
honourable house forsook him, and told him plainly, that he 
was ashamed of his complaint, and could not in conscience 
plead for him any longer: Mr. Smart in the mean while 
erying out aloud, and beseeching their lordships to appoint 
him another lawyer, and to take care of his fourteen thou- 
sand pound damages, besides other demands that he had to 
make, which arose to a greater sum. 

But after this (which was the fifth day of pleading between 
us) the case was heard no more concerning my particular, 
and many of the Lords said openly, that Mr. Smart had abused 
the House of Commons with a causeless complaint against 
me; whereupon my lord the Earl of Warwick was pleased to 
bring me an order of the Lords’ House, whereby 1 had liberty 
granted me to return unto my places of charge in the Uni- 
versity, or elsewhere, till they sent for me again, which they 
never did. 

The answers, that I gave in upon oath, and justified before 
their lordships, were to this effect :—all contrary to Mr. 
Fuller’s groundless reports : 

1. That the Communion-Table in the church of Durham 

¢ [See Journals of the House of f [Perhaps the same, who, in the 


Lords, Mar. 16, 1640, ed. Lond. (v.y.) year 1646, was named as one of the 
tom. iv. p. 185.—See also, Jul. 14,164), Council for the defence of the eleven 


p- 313; et passim. | Members against the charge of Colonel 
4 [See Journals, May 24, 1641, ibid., | Scroop and other officers of the army.— 
p- 256. ] See Whitelock’s Memorials, ed. Lond. 


e [See Jun. 24, 1641, p. 284.] 1732, p. 258. ] 





5904. ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE. 


(which, in the bill of complaint and Mr. Fuller’s History, is 
said to be the marble Altar with cherubins) was not set up by 
me, but by the Dean and Chapter there (whereof Mr. Smart 
himself was one) many years before I became Prebendary of 
that church, or ever saw the country : 

2. That, by the public accounts which are there registered, 
it did not appear to have cost above the tenth part of what 
is pretended, appurtenances and all: 

3. That likewise the copes used in that church were 
brought in thither long before my time, and when Mr. Smart 
the complainant was Prebendary there; who also allowed 
his, part (as I was ready to prove by the act-book) of the 
money that they cost: for they cost but little: 

4. That, as I never approved the picture of the Trinity, or 
the image of God the Father in the figure of an old man, or 
otherwise to be made or placed any where at all, so I was 
well assured, that there were none such (nor to my know- 
ledge or hearsay ever had been) put upon any cope that was 
ever used there among us: one there was, that had the story 
of the Passion embroidered upon it, but the cope that I used 
to wear, when at any time I attended the communion service, 
was of plain white satin only, without any embroidery upon 
it at all: 

5. That what the bill of complaint called the image of 
Christ, with a blue cap, and a golden beard, (Mr. Fuller’s 
History says it was red, and that it was set upon one of the 
copes,) was nothing else but the top of Bishop Hatfield’s 
tomb, (set up in the church under a side arch there two 
hundred years before I was born,) being a little portraiture, 
not appearing to be above ten inches long, and hardly dis- 
cernible to the eye, what figure it is: for it stands thirty foot 
from the ground: 

6. That, by the local statutes of that church, (whereunto 
Mr. Smart was sworn, as well as myself,) the treasurer was 
to give order, that the provision should every year be made 
of a sufficient number of wax-lights for the service of the 
choir during all the winter time; which statute I observed, 
when I was chosen into that office, and had order from the 
Dean and Chapter by capitular act to do it: yet upon the 
communion-table they that used to light the candles (the 


ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE, 595 


sacrists and the virgers) never set more than two fair candles, 
with a few small sizes near to them; which they put there 
of purpose that the people all about might have the better 
use of them for singing the psalms, and reading the lessons 
out of the Bibles: but two hundred was a greater number 
than they used all the church over, either upon Candlemas 
night, or any other; and that there were no more (some- 
times many less) lighted at that time, than at the like festi- 
vals in Christmas holidays, when the people of the city came 
in greater company to the church, and therefore required a 
greater store of lights: 

7. That I never forbad (nor any body else that I know) 
the singing of the (metre) Psalms in the church, which I 
used to sing daily there myself with other company at morn- 
ing prayer. But upon Sundays and holidays in the choir, 
before the sermon, the Creed was sung, (and sung plainly for 
every one to understand,) as it is appointed in the commu- 
nion-book; and, after the sermon, we sung a part of a psalm, 
or some other anthem taken out of the Scripture, and first 
signified to the people where they might find it : 

8. That so far was I from making any anthem to be sung 
of the three kings of Colen, as that I made it, when I first 
saw it, to be torn in pieces; and I myself cut it out of the 
old song-books belonging to the choristers’ school, with a 
penknife that lay by, at my very first coming to reside in 
that college. But sure I was, that no such anthem had been 
sung in the choir during all my time of attendance there, 
nor (for ought that any the eldest persons of the church and 
town could tell, or ever heard to the contrary,) for fifty or 
three score years before, and more: 

9. That there was indeed an ordinary knife, I confess, pro- 
vided and laid ready among other things belonging to the 
administration of the Communion, for the cutting of the 
bread, and divers other uses, in the church vestry; that, 
when the under officers there had any occasion to use a knife, 
they might not be put to go to seek one abroad: but, that it 
was ever consecrated, or so called, otherwise than as Mr. 
Smart and some of his followers had for their pleasure put 
that appellation upon it, I never heard, nor I believe any 
body else that lived there among us. 


996 ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE. 


There were divers other articles of this nature in the bill 
of complaint, whereof Mr. Smart could not prove any one : 
to which I gave the like answers, as I did here to these: but 
Mr. Fuller’s History makes no mention of them. 

10. Touching Mr. Smart’s sermon, I made answer, and 
submitted his censure to the prudent and religious consider- 
ation of the Lords, whether he was not justly condemned to 
be scandalous and seditious by his preaching thereof: and I 
represented many passages in it, disagreeable to the laws of 
God and His Church, and repugnant to the public statutes 
of Parliament. 

11. For which after we had begun to question him in the 
High Commission Court at Durham, (where we endeavoured 
to reduce him to a better mind, and to an unity with the 
Church, against which he had so injuriously and intemper- 
ately disclaimed,) I had no further hand or meddling with 
the prosecution of this matter in other courts against him, 
more than that I wrote (at the special instance of Judge 
Yelverton’) a letter in his behalf to the Archbishop of York 
and the Commissioners there, which I procured the Dean and 
most of the Prebendaries of Durham to sign and subscribe 
with me, earnestly entreating for him, that, upon any due 
sense of his fault, he might be quietly sent back to us again, 
in hope that he would thereafter live in better peace and con- 
cord with us, (as he promised both Judge Yelverton and us 
to do,) than he had done before. 

12. The cruel usage and imprisonment that he suffered, 
(whereof Mr. Fuller taketh special notice, and makes a mar- 
ginal mark at it,) was, as I have been credibly assured, no- 
thing else but a fair and gentle treatment of him in an 
officer’s house at York, to whom he was committed for a 
while, and paid little for it. It is the historian’s mistake 
here to say he was carried from York to Lambeth: for he was 
at his own request sent from Lambeth to York: the fine that 
was set upon him he never paid; and, by his own wilful loss 
of his Church livings, he gained a larger maintenance, living 


g {Sir Henry Yelverton, “one of the 1629.—See Echard’s Hist. Engl., Book 
Judges of the Common Pleas, a very 1. chap. 2. ann. 1629, ed. Lond. 1718, 
religious gentleman, and well read in tom. ii. p. 90.] 
the municipal laws,’ &c., died A.D. 





ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE. 397 


at his ease and pleasure, by the contribution that he got as 
a suspended and silenced preacher ; though the truth was, 
that, having had a prebend and a benefice many years toge- 
ther in the bishopric of Durham, and being always in health, 
he neglected preaching so much at them both, and elsewhere 
besides, that he was seldom noted to preach above two ser- 
mons in a year: who, though he demanded many thousand 
pounds at the Parliament, yet, by Mr. Fuller’s leave, the 
Parliament gave him none, nor ordered either myself, nor 
any other that he impeached, ever to pay him a groat: only, 
upon Dr. Carr’s death, (who had been put into his prebend 
place,) he was sent by the Lords’ to his vicarage and his pre- 
bend again, which he had little will to take, because he found 
but little profit in comparison of what he hoped to be had 
by them: in the meanwhile he took up divers great sums of 
money from some of his partizans in London, and made 
them believe that the Parliament would pay them all with 
advantage. 

13. There is another marginal note in Mr. Fuller, referring, 
as he saith, to my due praise and commendation ; whereof 
he makes one part to be, that I joined not with the French 
Protestants at Charenton, since I got over hither into France: 
but—I would that he and all the world should know it—l 
never refused to join with the Protestants, either here or any 
where else, in all things wherein they join with the Church 
of England. Many of them have been here at our church, 
and we have been at theirs. I have buried divers of our 
people at Charenton*, and they permit us to make use of their 
peculiar and decent cemetery here in Paris for that pur- 
pose; which if they did not, we should be forced to bury our 
dead in a ditch. I have baptized many of their children at 
the request of their own ministers, with whom I have good 
acquaintance, and find them to be very deserving and learned 


h [Dr. Thomas Carr appears to have __ with the consent of the ministers of the 


become Prebendary of Durham in 1630. 
—See Walker’s Sufferings of the Clergy, 
par. ii. ed. Lond. 1714, p. 20. 
[See Journals of the House of 
Lords, Jul. 22, 1641, tom. iv. p. 325. ] 
k [One signal instance of his con- 
stancy and courage for the Liturgy of 
the Church of England may not be 
omitted; that is, anno 1645, he did, 





Reformed Church of Charenton, near 
Paris, solemnly in his priestly habit, 
with his surplice, and with the Office of 
Burial used in the Church of England, 
inter there the body of Sir William 
Carnaby, a noble and loyal knight, not 
without the troublesome contradiction 
and contention of the Romish curate 
there,’’—See Basire, p. 58. ] 





ANSWER TO MR. FULLER’S CHARGE. 


398 


men, great lovers and honourers of our Church, notwith- 
standing the loss which she hath lately received in external 
matters, wherein we are agreed that the essence of true 
religion doth not consist. Many of their people, (and of the 
best sort and quality among them,) have frequented our pub- 
lic prayers with great reverence, and I have delivered the 
holy Communion to them according to our own order, which 
they observed religiously. I have married divers persons of 
good condition among them: and I have presented some of 
their scholars to be ordained Deacons and Priests here by 
our own Bishops, (whereof Monsieur de Tarenne’s Chaplain’ 
is one, and the Duke de la Force’s Chaplain™ another,) and 
the Church at Charenton approved of it: and I preached 
here publicly at their ordination. Besides, I have been (as 
often as I had spare time from attending our own congrega- 
tion) to pray and sing psalms with them, and to hear both 
the weekly and the Sunday sermons, at Charenton, whither 
two of my children also (pensioned here in a protestant 
family at Paris) have daily repaired for that purpose, with 
the gentlewoman that governed them. 

All which is abundantly" enough to let the world know, 
and see here, (as it doth,) what a vain and rash man Mr. 
Fuller is in his History: wherein he hath done injury to 
many more besides me, some dead, and some alive, who I 
hope will represent his unfaithfulness in his own country, both 
to himself and to others. I am only beholden to him for 
telling the truth of me in one particular, which is, that I 
have, by God’s blessing, reduced some and preserved many 


' {scil. Daniel Brevint, a native of 
Jersey, ordained by Thomas, Bishop of 
Galloway, on Trinity Sunday, June 12, 
1650, in Sir Richard Browne’s chapple, 
at Paris.—See Evelyn’s Diary, tom. i. 
p. 244; and Wood’s Athenee Oxoni- 
enses, vol. iv. col. 426. | 

™ (Durel, also a native of Jersey, 
was ordained at the same time with 
Brevint, and under the same circum- 
stances; and it is worthy of notice, 
that both were made Deacon and Priest 
on the same day; “in regard,’’ as Eve- 
lyn explains, “ to the necessity of the 
times, there being so few Bishops left 
in England, and consequently danger 
of a failure of both functions,’’—See 


Diary, ubi supra; item, p. 506.—Conf. 
Athen. Oxon., vol. iv. col. 87. ] 

n [Hyde appears to have considered 
that Cosin went further in this vindi- 
cation of himself, than was necessary. 
In a letter, dated Brussels, June 27, 
1659, addressed to Dr. John Barwick, 
Hyde says: ‘‘I pray tell me, whether 
my lord of Ely doth not think that 
my very good friend Dr. Cosin hath 
proceeded farther than he needed to 
have done upon any provocation Mr. 
Fuller could have given him.’’—See 
Life of Dr. John Barwick, English 
edition, 8vo. Lond. 1724, Append., 


~Letter viii. p. 422. ] 





ANSWER ΤῸ MR. FULLER’S CHARGE. 399 


others from communicating with the Papists; defending® the 
truth of our own religion (as I have always done) wherever I 
am: and therein I pray God still to bless us, and preserve 
us all. 

And now, out of all this which I have faithfully related, I 
trust that those, who intend their animadversions upon his 
History, will have enough to say and insert in their own style 
for the vindication of, 

Sir, 
Your affectionate and most humble Servant, 
dG: 


You know Monsieur Dallé to be one of the greatest ac- 
count and the best deserts amongst the reformed Church- 
men in France: it will not be amiss to let you know upon 
this occasion, what he wrote to a scholar, a friend of his, and 
an University-man in Cambridge; for these were the words 
in his letter: “ Tuus Cosins, imo noster, (intercedit enim nobis 
cum illo suavis amicitia atque familiaritas,) mihi admodum 
probatur. Bestia sunt, et quidem fanatici, qui eum de Papis- 
mo suspectum habent, a quo vie reperias qui sit magis alie- 
nus, δ᾽.) 


γι © [See an interesting account of Co- 1651, as recorded in an extract from 
sin’s disputation with Mr. T. Keightly, a Diary, Paris, (said to be Evelyn’s,) 
and the Friar Coniers, held at Evelyn’s preserved among the Smith MSS. in 
lodgings, at Paris, about June 26, the Bodl. Libr., xxiii. 7. p. 29.] 


A LETTER 


FROM DR.“JOHN COSIN, AFTERWARDS BISHOP OF DURHAM, 
TO MR. CORDEL, WHO SCRUPLED TO COMMUNICATE WITH 
THE FRENCH PROTESTANTS UPON SOME OF THE MODERN 
PRETENCES. 


[This letter, preceded by the following extract from Basire, was originally 
published by Dr. William Fleetwood, in the Appendix to the first part of his 
“ Judgment of the Church of England in the case of Lay-Baptism, and of Dis- 
senters’ Baptism.’’—See ‘A complete collection of his Sermons, Tracts, and 
Pieces of all kinds,’ ed. Lond. 1737, pag. 538, et seq. ] 


Dr. Isaac Bastrez, Archdeacon of Northumberland, in his Account of 
Bishop Cosin, (annexed to his Funeral Sermon,) in page 58, hath these 
words : 

“This truth is confessed by somebody (otherwise a good man) who 
yet seems no great friend to our Bishop ; but being convinced by the 
reality of these his actions, especially abroad, hath these words: ‘ This 
must be reported to the due commendation of Dr. Cosin, that, when he 

‘was in France, he neither joined with the Church of French Protestants 
at Charenton, nigh Paris, (Dr. Basire here inserts the word ‘fa/se,’) nor 
kept any communion with the Papists therein, but confined himself to 
the Church of old English Protestants therein, where, by his pious 
living, and constant praying and preaching, he reduced some recusants 
to, and confirmed more doubters in, the protestant religion. Many 
were his encounters with Jesuits and Priests, defeating the suspicions 
of his foes, and exceeding the expectation of his friends, in the success 
of such disputes. —Church History, by Mr. Thomas Fuller, Cent. xvii. 
Book xi. sect. 38. p. 172. His many mistakes about Mr. Peter Smart’s 
prosecutions (or rather persecutions) of our Bishop are confuted by the 
Bishop's own express letter to Mr. Waring? and Dr. Reeves4, April 6, 


p [Heylin says, Mr. Warren: but 
perhaps Robert Waring is meant, who 
was student of Ch. Ch. in 1630, and 


4 [Unless Dr. Bruno Ryves be in- 
tended, whose name appears to have 
been sometimes confounded with that 


bore arms on the part of K. Charles I. 
within the garrison of Oxford. He was 
a friend of Bruno Ryves.—See Wood’s 
Athene, ed. Bliss, vol. iii. coll. 453, 
454. | 


of Reeves, (See Athen. Oxon., vol. iii. 
col. 1111,) probably this may be the 
same person, who is mentioned as Mr. 
Richard Reeves by Cosin, in the post- 
seript of his letter to Gunning, dated 





LETTER TO MR. CORDEL. 401 


1658. In which letter also our Bishop censures at large Mr. Fuller’s 
calumny, wherein he affirms, that Dr. Cosin did not join with the French 
Protestants at Charenton ; against which assertion the Doctor declares 
to all the world, that he never refused to join with the Protestants 
there, or anywhere else, in all things wherein they joined with the 
Church of England. And, that our Doctor was constant in this 
his judgment, may further appear by a former full letter of his from 
Paris, February 7, 1650, written to one Mr. Cordel, then at Blois, who 
seemed shy to communicate with the Protestants there upon this very 
scruple of their inorderly ordination, &c. as Dr. Cosin styled it ; who 
there and then determined the question in the affirmative, for our com- 
munion with them, salvo semper jure Ecclesie Anglicane.” 


I transcribe this whole passage, as well to certify the reader that such 
a letter was written by Dr. Cosin, as to let him see the occasion of it. 
The letter follows. 


TO MR. CORDEL AT BLOIS. 


Paris, Feb. 7, 1650. 

I LIKE your moderation well, in giving so fair and calm an 
answer to Monsieur Testard’s™ motion for communicating in 
their Church: which truly (to speak my mind® freely to you) 
I would not wish any of ours absolutely to refuse, or deter- 
mine to be unlawful, for fear of a greater scandal that may 
thereupon arise, than we can tell how to answer or excuse: 
_ especially if any of us should renounce it upon these two 
grounds which you allege for them, 1. that they have no 
Priests, 2. that they have no consecration of the elements. 

I. For, as to the first, though we may safely say, and 
maintain it, that their ministers are not so duly and rightly 





May 26, 1627, (1657.)} 

τ ΓΜ. P. Testard was the author of 
a book entitled ᾿Ειρηνικὸν, 8°. Blesis, 
1633; and also of an ‘ Apologie pour le 
sentiment des Evangeliques, touchant 
la justification, &c., contre la doctrine 
de l’ Eglise Romaine et les nouveaux 
artifices de M.dela Milletiere, &c., 8°. 
Saumur, 1639, ] 


COSIN, 


* [Cosin’s judgment in this parti- 
cular does not appear to have been met 
by the approbation of the more orthodox 
of the English Clergy. Perhaps Cosin 
himself may be thought to have had 
some misgivings on this subject.—See 
the last paragraph of his letter to Gun- 
ning, dated Paris, March 21, 1657, and 
the letter of May 6, 1657.] 


pd 


402 LEYTER TO MR. CORDEL. 


ordained, as they should be, by those Prelates and Bishops 
of the Church, who, since the Apostles’ time, have only had 
the ordinary power and authority to make and constitute a 
Priest, yet, that by reason of this defect there is a total 
nullity in their ordimation, or that they be therefore no 
Priests or Ministers of the Church at all, because they are 
ordained by those only who are no more but Priests or 
Ministers among them, for my part, I would be loath to 
affirm and determine against them. And these are my 
reasons : 

First, I conceive that the power of Ordination was restrain- 
ed to Bishops, rather by Apostolical practice, and the per- 
petual custom and canons of the Church, than by any adso- 
lute precept, that either Christ or His Apostles gave about it. 
Nor can I yet meet with any convincing argument to set it 
upon a more high and divine institution. From which cus- 
toms and laws of the universal Church, (therein following the 
example of the Apostles,) though I reckon it to be a great 
presumption and fault for any particular Chureh to recede, 
and may truly say that fieri non oportuit, (when the college of 
mere Presbyters shall ordain and make a Priest,) yet I cannot 
so peremptorily say that factum non valet, and pronounce the 
ordination to be utterly void. For as, in the case of Baptism, 
we take just exceptions against a layman, or a woman, that 
presumes to give it, and may as justly punish them by the 
censures of the Church wherein they live, for taking upon 
them to do that office, which was never committed unto 
them, yet, if once they have done it, we make not their act 
and administration of Baptism void, nor presume we to 
iterate the Sacrament after them,—so may it well be in the 
case of Ordination, and the ministers of the reformed congre- 
gations in France: who are liable to give an account, both to 
God and His Church in general, for taking upon them to 
exercise that power, which by the perpetual practice and 
laws of His Church they were never permitted to exercise, 
and may justly be faulted for it, both by the verdict of all 
others who are members of the Catholic Church, (as we are 
that adhere to the laws of it more strictly and peaceably than 
they do,) and by the censures of a lawful meeting or general 
council of that Church, which at any time shall come to have 









gb ASL τὰν TOOT aaa nes τος ον 


LETTER TO MR. CORDEL. 403 


authority over them. And yet, all this while, the act which 
they do, though it be disorderly done, and the ordinations 
which they make, though they make them wnlawfully, shall 
not be altogether null and invalid, no more than the act of 
‘baptizing before mentioned, or the act of consecrating or 
administering the Eucharist by a Priest that is suspended, 
and restrained from exercising his power and office in the 
Church. Therefore, if at any time a minister so ordained in 
these French Churches came to incorporate himself in ours, 
and to receive a public charge or cure of souls among us in 
the Church of England, (as I have known some of them to 
have so done of late, and can instance in many other before 
my time,) our Bishops did not re-ordain him before they 
admitted to his charge, as they would have done, if his former 
ordination here in France had been yoid. Nor did our laws 
require more of him, than to declare his public consent to 
the religion received amongst us, and to subscribe the articles 
established'. And I love not to be herein more wise, or 
harder, than our own Church is; which because it hath never 
publicly condemned and pronounced the ordinations of the 
other reformed Churches to be void, as it doth not those of 
the unreformed Churches neither among the Papists, (though 
I hear that the ministers here (see note A.) in France and 
Geneva use so to do, who will not admit a Papist Priest 
himself to exercise the office of a Minister among them, till 
they have re-ordained him,) for my part, as to that particular, 
I dare not take upon me to condemn, or determine a nullity 
of their own ordinations against them: though, in the in- 
terim, I take it to be utterly a fault among them, and a great 
presumption, deserving a great censure to be inflicted on 
them by such a power of the Church as may, by the grace 
of God, be at any time duly gathered together hereafter 
against them, as well for the amendment of many other dis- 
orders and defects in their Church, as for this particular i- 
orderly ordination and defect of Episcopacy amongst them. 


A. Monsieur Testard can tell you whether this be true or no ; and, if it 
be true, I know not how they will be able to justify it. 


* [See 13 Eliz. c. xii—Statutes at large, ed. 4to. vol. ii, p. 586. ] 


pd2 





404 LETTER TO MR. CORDEL. 


Secondly, Besides that this their boldness, presumption, 
and novelty, (in setting up themselves, without any invinci- 
ble necessity that they had so to do, against the Apostolical 
practice and perpetual order of God’s Church till their days,) 
was always faulted and reserved for further censure in: due 
time, which they have justly merited, there have been both 
learned and eminent men, (as well in former ages as in this, 
and even among the Roman Catholics as well as Protest- 
ants,) who have held and maintained it for good and passa- 
ble divinity, that Presbyters have the intrinsical power of 
ordination in actu primo, though for the avoiding of schism, 
(as 5. Hierome speaks ",) and preserving order and discipline 
in the Church, they have been restrained ever since the first 
times, and still are, (but where they take a liberty to them- 
selves that was never duly given them,) from exercising their 
power tz actu secundo ;,and therefore that, however their act of 
ordaining other presbyters shall be void according to the strict- 
ness of the canon, (in regard they were universally prohibited 
from executing that act, and breaking the order and disci- 
pline of the Church,) yet that the same act shall not be sim- 
ply void in the nature of the thing, in regard that the in- 
trinsical power remained, when the exercise of it was sus- 
pended, and taken from them. Of this opinion and judg- 
ment in old time were 8S. Hierome, and his followers, alleged 
by Gratian, dist. 93*; and, of later times, the Master of 
the Sentences, lib. iv. dist. 24%; Bonavent., ibid. 93, art. 
27; with other schoolmen, as Aureol., ibid. art. 22; and 
Anton. de Rosellis, de Potest. Imper. et Papali, part iv. ο. 18°; 
and, in this latter age, not only Armachanus in Sum.,ad queest. 
Arm., 1. xi. c. 2, 3, &c., and c. 7“; Alphons. a Castro, verb. 


« [Epist. exlvi. ad Evangelum, (sive 
epist. Ixxxy. ad Evagr. Epise.)—Op., 
ed. Vallars., tom. i. col. 1076.—Quod 
autem postea unus electus est, qui cz- 
teris preponeretur, in schismatis re- 
medium factum est.—Conf. Gratiani 
Decretum, par. i. dist. xeiii. cap. 124, 
infr. citat. } 

* [Decretum, par. i. dist. xciii. cap. 
124.—Corp. Jur. Can., ed. Par. 1612, 
col. 489. | 

y [Vid. Petri Lombardi Sentent., 
lib. iv. distinct. xxiv. cap. 8, ed. Bas. 
1513, fol. 185. B, 186. A. ] 

z | Vid. S. Bonaventure Sent., lib, 


iv. dist. xxiv. part. ii. art. il. quest. 3. 
p. 369.—Op., ed. Rome, 1596, tom. v. } 

a [Petri Aureoli Sent., lib. iv. dist. 
xxiv. art. ii. ed. Rome, 1605, tom. ii. 
pp. 161—164. | 

Ὁ [ Antonii de Rosell. tract. de po- 
testate Imperatoris et Pape, par. iv. 
capit. 18; ap. Goldasti Monarch. Im- 
per., ed. Francof. 1621, tom. i. pp. 471, 
472. | 

¢ [ Vid. Richardi, seu Radulphi Fitz- 
raufe, Archiepisc. Armachan., Sum. 
in Quzstionibus Armenorum, lib. xi. 
cap. 2, 3, ed. Par. 1511, fol. Ixxxii. 
B, et seq.; item, cap. 7. fol. Ixxxy. ] 





LETTER TO MR. CORDEL. 4.05 


Episcopus*; Mich. Medina, de Sacr. Hom. Orig., lib. 1. 6. 5°; 
among the Roman Catholics: but likewise Cassander, in Con- 
sult. art. 14‘; besides Melancthon 8, Clementias », Gerardusj, 
and Calixtus, amongst the Protestants; and Bishop Jewel‘, 
(Def. p. ii. c. iii. 4.1, and 6. ix. div. 1.) Dr. Field, Of the Church, 
lib. iii. ec. 39'; Hooker, Eccles. Pol., lib. 11. ὃ 3 ult.™; and 
Mason", among the divines of our own Church. All which 
authors are of so great credit with you and me, that, though 
we are not altogether of their mind, yet we would be loath 
to let the world see, that we contradict them all, and con- 
demn their judgment openly; as needs we must, if we hold 
the contrary, and say that the ministers of the reformed 
French Churches, for want of episcopal ordination, have no 
order at all. 

Thirdly, If upon this ground we renounce the French, we 
must for the very same reason renounce all the ministers of 
Germany besides, (for the superintendents, that make and 
ordain ministers there, have no new ordination beyond their 
own presbytery at all:) and then what will become of the 
Protestant party ? 

Fourthly, If the Church and kingdom of England have 
acknowledged them, (as they did in admitting of them, when 
they fled thither for refuge, and placing them by public 
authority in divers of the most eminent cities among us, 
without prohibiting to any of our people to go and com- 
municate with them,) why should we, that are but private 


4 [Alph. a Castr. advers. Hzres., 
lib. vi. ὃ Episcopus.——Op., ed. Par. 


Evangelica, quam Ecclesia Augustane 
Confessioni addicte profitentur, ex Ro- 


1571, coll. 371—380. } 

© [Mich. Medin. De sacrorum ho- 
minum continentia, &c., ed. Venet. 
1569, pp. 4, 5, 6.] 

{ [Cassand. in Consult., art. De Or- 
dine Ecclesiastico.— Op., ed. Par. 1616, 
pp. 952, 953.] 

§ [ Vid. Melancth. Apol. Confess., cap. 
De potestate Ecclesiasticé, ὃ Que sit 
potestas episcoporum, &c.—Op., Wit- 
teb. 1562, tom. i. fol. 119. B.—Conf. 
Comment. in 1 Cor. cap. iv. tom. iv. 
p. 220. ] 

b [Possibly Mart. Chemnitius. Vid. 
Exam. Cone. Trid. par. ii. cap. De 
Sacram. Ord., ed. Francof. 1574, p. 74; 
item, conf. par. lii. p. 148. 

i [Vid. Johan. Gerardi Confess. Ca- 
thol., in qua Doctrina Catholica et 


mano-Catholicorum scriptorum suffra- 
giis confirmatur, lib. ii. par. ii. artic. 
vi. cap. 3, De Episcoporum et Presby- 
terorum discrimine; ed. Jenz, 1636, 
tom. ii. pp. 28—44. ] 

κ᾿ [Defence of the Apology of the 
Chureh of England, par. ii. chap. iil. 
divis. 1. § Orders, p. 99; chap. ix. div. 
1. p. 202.—Works, ed. Lond. 1609. 
—See also chap. iii. div. 5. § Equality 
of Bishops, p. 85. ] 

1 [Ed. Oxford, 1628, pp. 154—159.] 

m [Vid. book iii. δὲ 3, 11—Works, 
ed. Lond. 1723, pp. 62, 63, 83, 84.] 

" [Francis Mason’s Vindication of 
the Church of England, &c., book i. 
chap. iii. §§ 7,8; ed. (John Lindsay) 
Lond. 1728, pp. 19, 20.] 


406 LETTER TO MR. CORDEL. 


persons, utterly disclaim their communion in their own 
country ? 

Fifthly, 8. Cyprian’s° error, in re-baptizing heretics, was as 
scandalous to other Churches abroad, as the French error is 
in their ordaining of ministers here; and yet those other 
Churches abroad did not renounce communion with them : 
but Cornelius and his clergy could well agree with him and 
his followers, notwithstanding the difference between them in 
that particular; which is a fair pattern for ourselves, though 
they in the meanwhile be in the wrong, as S. Cyprian then 
was, (and so we may tell them, without disclaiming their 
communion,) and we in the right, as Cornelius then was. 

Sixthly, Somewhat it is, that they do not absolutely dis- 
claim Episcopacy, nor ever did; but say and hold, that their 
Presbyters are Bishops, especially the chief Presbyters that 
preside at their ordinations and their courts of jurisdiction. 
So that the true question between us and them is, not so 
much whether there ought to be Bishops in the Church or 
no, as whether their Presbyters be true Bishops: wherein 
I think they will have more to do, to defend themselves for 
want of subordination, than of ordination itself. For, where 
the clergy are any great multitude, order doth necessarily 
require that they be distinguished by degrees: and therefore, 
as they have ever been, so we hold (and, as I believe, we hold 
most truly) there ever ought to be, at least two sorts of eccle- 
siastical persons besides Deacons, the one subordinate to the 
other, as inferior ministers were to the Apostles at the begin- 
ning, and to the Bishops always since: which we find plainly 
set forth in the Scripture, and in all ecclesiastical records 
that followed after. Thus, by all that I have said in this first 
point, you see my mind; wherein I seek the ways of peace 
with others, without prejudice to the truth and right that we 
have among ourselves. And therefore, under that protes- 
tation (see note B.) which Monsieur Testard offers you a 

B. Which was, not to recede in any wise from the doctrine and disci- 
pline of the Church of England ; nor thereby to approve this discipline of 
the French Churches for a rule to others ; or to join with them that re- 


nounce Episcopacy, and condemn the proceedings of our own Church, or 
the laws of our own kingdom. 


© (Vid. Epist. Ixxiii,—S. Cypr. op., ed. Oxon. 1682, p. 201. ] 





LETTER TO MR. CORDEL. 407 


permission to make, and considering there is no prohibition 
of our Church against it, (as there is against our communi- 
cating with the Papists, and that well grounded upon the 
Scripture and Will of God,) I do not see, but that both you 
and others that are with you may, (either in case of neces- 
sity, when you cannot have the Sacrament among yourselves, 
or in regard of declaring your unity in professing the same 
religion, which you and they do,) go otherwhiles to com- 
municate reverently with them of the French Church. Only 
I could wish, that, as you shall be admitted to your protesta- 
tion before you do it, so you may be likewise admitted to receive 
that blessed Eucharist devoutly upon your knees, and have 
the words pronounced to you, when they deliver it, which 
even in Scotland they omit not, and which in effect the 
ministers here in France say before, both in their exhortation 
or declaration to the people, and in their prayers to God: 
“ Prenez, mangez les vivandes sacrees de nostre Seigneur Jesus 
Christ, qui nous veut vraiment faire participans de Son Corps 
et de Son Sang: le pain celeste pour vous repaistre et nourir a 
vie eternelle: la Communion de Jesus Christ nostre Seigneur 
livré pour nous a mort, et nous donne en viande et nouriture 
de vie eternelle ; en certaine foy que nous jouissons de Son 
Corps et de Son Sang voire de Luy tout entierement: Jesus 
Christ estant vray Dieu et vray homme, est veritablement le 
sainct pain celeste pour nous vivifier.”’ Any of which sen- 
tences (being their own already) if you could obtain to be 
particularly said to you, when you receive the Sacrament in 
both kinds, it would be more agreeable to the institution and 
nature of that holy action and service, and more efficacious to 
the elevating of your devout souls at that instant time, than 
barely to pass by, and have nothing said to you, but what 
was generally said before in the declaration to all the people. 
Nor know I any reason, why they may not as well satisfy 
your desires in these two particulars, (without alleging the 
order of their Church against it,) as suffer you to make 
your protestation, which is no less against their order than 
the others are: though we hold not either of them so ma- 
terial, as that without them there may be no communion 
at all. 

II. Now, as to the second point of consecrating the Sacra- 





408 LETTER TO MR. CORDEL. 


ment, I shall need to say no more, but that, whether you 
take it after the way of the Greek Church? by prayers and 
invocations, or after the way of the Latin 4, by repeating the 
words of our Saviour in the institution of the Sacrament, 
it cannot be denied but that these French Churches have 
them both: as you may see in their public books appointed 
for that purpose, though disposed after another order than 
ours is. And if it be zdem, though it be idem alio modo, it 
alters not the substance or nature of the thing itself. Which 
is as much as at the present I can say to both your demands: 
and which you may communicate to whom you please, (to 
Monsieur Testard and all, if you will,) but specially to my 
noble friend Sir Ralph Verney, whose servant I am, as I am 
likewise truly yours, J. ΟΣ 


Monsieur Testard will do you and me a special favour, and 
he will do some good service in it besides to our King, to our 
Church, and to his own party, if at your instant request 
(which I pray make to him) he will be pleased (according to 
the protestation which he will permit you to subscribe) to 
give his direct answer to these two questions, which you may 
prepare ready for him in a fair paper, written alone by them- 
selves: viz. 

1. Whether the French Churches here reformed hold and 
urge such an absolute necessity of Presbytery, as that all 
other Churches are bound to receive and establish it among 
them? 

2. Whether Episcopacy, or the government of Churches by 
Bishops, (especially being assisted by Presbyters, as ours are 
by their Deans and Chapters,) be not a lawful order and 
government in God’s Church? 

Sure 1 am, that not only the reformed Churches in Ger- 
many, both in their Confession of Augsburg "ἡ, in their Apology 
for that Confession’, cap. De Ordine Ecclesiastico, and cap. De 


P [ Vid. Miss. S. Joan. Chrysost. ap. art. xiv. De Ordine Ecclesiastico; item, 
Jacobi Goar Eucholog., ed. Lut. Par. cap. ult. De Potestate Ecclesiastica ; 
1647, p. 77; item, Miss. S. Basil.,ibid. ap. Melancth. op., ed. Witteb. 1562, 


p. 166. ] tom. i. fol. 30. A, 36. B.] 
4 [See Can. Miss., form. Consecrat., [ Vid. Apol. Confessionis, art. xiv., 
ap. Missal. Roman. | item, cap. De potest. Eccl., ubi supr., 


τ (Vid. Confess. August., ann. 1530, [0]. 95. B, 96. A, 108. B, et seq. | 






ot Tle Dn i Si il io ae 


NIL ONIN Hatt ΝΣ 


αν 


LETTER TO MR. CORDEL. 4.09 


Potest. Ecclesie, their other Colloquies at Worms'* and Ratis- 
bon t, and in divers of their books besides, but likewise Mr. 
Calvin (who subscribed to the Augustan Confession) in his 
book, De necessitate Reformande Ecclesiz, ad Sadoletum Car- 
dinalem", (his old friend,) and in his Epistles to Archbishop 
Cranmer * and Bishop Ridley, and in his Institutions, hb. iv. 
cap. iv. § 4, &c.¥, and with him Mr. Beza, too, in his book 
De diversis grad. Ministerii, cap. xxi. § 2, and cap. xvill.’— 
sure I am, (I say,) that all these acknowledge Episcopacy 
and the government by Bishops to be lawful; and therefore 
1 doubt not but Monsieur Testard, and as many more min- 
isters of the French Church as be near him, (but himself 
howsoever,) may well subscribe his hand and seal to both the 
questions propounded. 





t Vid. Articulos August. copiosius 
et explicacius declaratos Wormaciz, 
&c., ann. 1540, art. xiv., et cap. ult. ; 
ubi supr. fol. 41. A. B, 51. A, et seq. 
—Conf. Colloq. Wormaciens. ann. 
1540, Acta, § De Ordine, et § De Ec- 
clesiast. Gubernat., tom. iv. fol. 675. 
A. B, 679. A. B; item, Acta in Con- 
ventu Ratisbonens., art. xi. De Sa- 
cram. Ord., et art. xix. De Eccl. Hier. 
Ord. ; ibid., fol. 712. B, 717. A, et seq. ] 


u [Calvini op., ed. Amstel]. 1667, 
tom. viii. p. 37, et seq. ] 

x [See two letters from Calvin to 
Cranmer, Calvini op., tom. ix. p. 61.] 

¥ [Ibid., p. 286, et seq. ] 

z [Vid. Beze Respons. ad Tracta- 
tionem de Ministrorum Evangelii Gra- 
dibus ab Hadriano Saravia Belga edi- 
tam, ed. 8°. (Genev.) 1592, pp. 125, 
126, 109—111; item, cap. xxil. p. 127 
—135. | 


LETTERS TOUCHING THE SCHOLASTICAL HISTORY 
OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


PART OF A LETTER FROM MR. GUNNING TO DR. COSINs, 
ABOUT BOOKS CANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL. 


Honovurep Sir, 

Your stationer, who takes care of the printing of your 
book, pressing me to prefix something by way of preface to 
your book, I thought good to send to you my reasons, why I 
think it best that rather you make the preface yourself, in 
your own name also. Now that you have changed your pur- 
pose and intent, to set your name (as it is indeed best to do) 
to the book openly in the title-page,—now, had I any thought 
of prefacing otherwise than as my Lord of Ely advised me, 
when he advised that the book were best to come forth with- 
out your name, or taking notice of it, (but I believe your 
contrary resolution will do you, and your book, and your 
stationer, more right,)——I had but this to say, which I am 
willing you may say for me or from me, if you please, and I am 
ready to acknowledge to all the world, that I, finding this 
controversy about the number of the books canonical to have 
been differently stated by Councils and Fathers, and to be 
no new debate, but, as Origen [says] (anno 226) in the second 
book against Celsus4, that anon after the very beginning of 


¢ [This portion of Bp. Gunning’s 
letter is preserved among Bp. Barlow’s 
MSS. in, the Library of Queen’s Col- 
lege, Oxford. ‘The letters from Cosin 
which follow, and which evidently are 
replies to it, were found in the British 
Museum. It is printed here as a neces- 
sary introduction to them; as the let- 
ters cannot fail to be interesting, in 


connection with the history and argu- 
ment of the Scholastical History of the 
Canon. } 

4 [ Vid. lib. iii. contra Celsum, ὃ 11. 
—Orig. op., ed. Ben. Par. 1733, tom. 
i. p. 458.--- φησὶ δὲ καὶ ὅτι ev ἐφρόνουν 
πάντες" οὐδ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ δρῶν, ὅτι ἀρχῆ- 
θεν περὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πεπιστευομένοις 
θείοις εἶναι βιβλίοις ἐκδοχὴν γεγόνασι 





eee oe hn eb 


Δαν POI S ον τάν ψν, ΦΣ γον 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 411 


Christianity the believers were not of one accord in setting 
down what books of Holy Scripture were divine, (his words 
are: “ Ait (Celsus) etiam consensum fuisse inter omnes, ne 
hic quidem videns, quod mox ab initio non conveniebat inter 
credentes de delectu divinorum sacre Scripture voluminum,’) 
—I wrote unto you about this question : and I acknowledge 
myself very much obliged for your very great and learned 
pains in your answer to me, which now is come into a just 
volume, and likely to see the light for others’ information 
also. I also profess freely unto you, as I have otherwhere to 
all my friends, that I never read any tract touching this con- 
troversy betwixt the Romanists and the Protestants done 
with half that judgment, learning, pains, and diligence, that 
this is done with; few indeed ever before insisting upon the 
right way of enquiry, which only is, or can be, by historical 
disquisition of the universal tradition and testimony of the 
Church of God in all ages down to ours, (and the ancient 
primitive one especially concerning the same:) and I think 
no other author before you will pretend to have pursued this 
course in their tracts about it. 

Whereas the work here to be done seemed to you rightly 
to be the well weighing the Roman article hereabout in the 
definition of the Council of Trent, and the Article of the 
Church of England hereabout, (viz. Art. vi., among our thirty- 
nine Articles,) I freely acknowledge to you, with all thank- 
fulness, that you have satisfied me as to the overpowering of 
the Tridentine definition, that they have done that herein 
which can never be justified nor safely subscribed unto, 
whilst they determine, that all those books (the catalogue 
- whereof they subjoin, including all those controverted books, 
or Deutero-Canonicos,) are to be received with equal affection 
of piety and reverence, and bid Anathema to all who shall 
not receive all those books entirely, in all the parts of them, 
as sacred and canonical, as they are in their vulgar Latin 
edition. But then, in the second place, as to your defence 
of the Article of the Church of England, and the judgment 
itself to be made of some of the controverted books, as 


διαφωνίαι τῶν πιστευόντων.--- Τ "8 Latin Genebrard’s edit., Par. 1604, tom. 1]. 
in the text corresponds with the ver-  p. 447.) 
sion of Erasmus, and also with that in 





412 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


I have all along in my letters to you, so also now again 
I alike freely must profess to you, that I cannot consent to 
your way of stating that, and do not see reason in much of 
that you drive at in your book, and therefore must be an 
unfit person to prefix a preface to your learned book. 

For there being two ways, whereby it may be rightly de- 
fended, that these controverted books are not applied (much 
less with equal authority) to establish, as by firm proof, any 
doctrine against contradictors or those that will be conten- 
tious, (I understand, where the doctrine is not found in other 
uncontroverted books,) either because they have not been all 
along alike confessedly and uncontrovertedly the Word of 
God, (though they may be notwithstanding, nay to some un- 
doubtedly and certainly [are] the Word of God,—and thus 
Epiphanius useth the word apocryphal, speaking of the Book 
of the Revelation, the last book of the New Testament: his 
words are, (res. xxvi., which is that of the Gnostics:) διὸ 
ἐν τοῖς ἀποκρύφοις ἀναγινώσκοντες, K.T.r.-—“ wherefore we 
reading in the apocryphal writings, I beheld a tree which 
bare twelve manner of fruits,’ &c., “and he said unto me, 
This is the tree of life,’ &c. Apoc. xxii.; and adds‘, ‘We 
also here see that it is ἀπόκρυφον, or hidden from us,—the 
first original of these books, and we have nothing but trans- 
lations of them, and therefore cannot dispute alike firmly out 
of them against contradictors, as others of those whose origi- 
nals we have’ :— 

In this sense our Church deservedly (as you and I agree) 
puts difference twixt those controverted books and the other, 
as to the firm establishing any doctrine out of them alone, 
except when we find such sayings of these books vouched 
often in the tradition and testimony of the ancient Fathers: 

Thus it is easy to prove, that the books of Ecclus., Sap. of 
Sol., Tobit, Judith, Baruch, the Maccabees, first and second, 


e Vid. Epiphanium, Heres. xxvi. 
§ 5. [Op., ed. Par. 1622,] tom. i. p. 
86; et que ibi notavimus. Ibi enim 
Apocalypsin Johannis non citat. [This 
note has been added to the MS. by Bp. 
Barlow.—The words of Epiphanius are : 
διὸ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἀναγινώσκοντες, 
ὅτι εἶδον δένδρον φέρον δώδεκα καρποὺς 
τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ" καὶ εἶπέ μοι τοῦτό ἐστι 





τὸ ζύλον τῆς ζωῆς ὃ αὐτοὶ ἀλληγο- 
ροῦσιν εἰς τὴν κατὰ μῆνα γινομένην γυ- 
ναικείαν ρύσιν.] 

f [The words which follow are not 
found in Epiphanius. They are per- 
haps the comment of some controver- 
sial author, upon whom Gunning re- 
lied for his previous quotation. ] 











LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIFTURE. 413 


have not alike testimony for their being received of the 
Church, whereof we have now only the Greek and Latin 
versions from them, though they were all at first written in 
Hebrew or Chaldee, as may be proved from 8. Hierome’s own 
confession, for most of them, and for the rest by authority 
equal to Jerome’s :) 

Or, secondly, that these books are to be held apocryphal 
and invalid for establishing any doctrine, because they were 
never indited by God’s Spirit, but are mere human writings 
though they are excellent ones :—if this latter rightly seem 
to me to be your sense, I must then suspend my consent at 
present. 

And here, first, I would enquire with you, which of these 
two senses of understanding our Article best agrees with the 
sense of our first reformers and those that made the Article: 
and next, whether their sense be agreeable to the sense of 
the best antiquity and universal tradition of the Church in 
all ages, and since the Apostles’ times. 

And as to the sense, first, of our reformers, and the authors 
of our Article, I again say (as heretofore I said unto you) 
that our sixth Article in King Edward the Sixth’s time was 
wholly without that distinction of the books canonical and 
the others set down as not such. The Church was content 
then to say, in her sixth Article, these two things against the 
Romanists$: The Holy Scripture contains all things neces- 
sary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein 
(though it may be admitted as pious and profitable) nor may 
be proved thereby, is not to be required that it should be be- 
lieved as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary 
‘to salvation :” 2ndly, that “in the name of Holy Scripture,” 
(to this enquiry of what contains articles of faith or things 
necessary to salvation,) “they meant or understood those cano- 


8 In the Articles of Ed. VI., made 
anno 1552, hoc est, 6°. Ed. VI., and 
printed at Lond. 1553, these words are 
in the 5th Article, not in the 6th, as 
here he tells us. [Barl.—The exact 


reading of this fifth of Edward’s forty- 
two Articles is, ‘‘ Hely Scripture con- 
taineth all things necessary to salva- 
tion; so that whatsoever is neither read 
therein, nor may be proved thereby, 
although it be sometime received of the 


faithful, as godly and profitable for an 
order and comeliness, yet no man ought 
to be constrained to believe it, as an 
article of faith, or repute it requisite 
to the necessity of salvation.”’ } 

h Qndly. Not one word of this (which 
he saith is in the 6th Article) is in any 
Article of Ed. VI. [Barl.—Gunning 
appears to have made some confusion 
between the fifth Article of 1552, and 
the 6th of 1562. ] 





414. LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


nical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority 
there was never any doubt in the Church.” 

Thus far they without any catalogue added. Now, wheni 
some seven years after a catalogue was added, it is in reason to 
be presumed to have been a catalogue of what was last men- 
tioned, viz. not simply of the canonical books, but of those 
canonical books of whose authority was never any doubt in 
the Church: for they found it a very happy thing that they 
could say (as indeed they might say most truly) that all arti- 
cles of faith, and all things required as necessary unto salva- 
tion, are contained not only [in] the canonical Holy Serip- 
tures, but (which is much more for our comfort and quiet) 
even in those canonical books of whose authority there was 
never doubt in the Church. For those, of which there had 
been considerable doubt by considerable parts of the Church 
for some time, could not be of equal or lke authority 
(as the Tridentine definition will have it) for the determin- 
ing of any point of faith with those of whose authority 
there was never any doubt in the Church, and of those 
latter the after subjoined catalogue seems to have been a 
fair and true catalogue. 

But, on the other side, no man can with any colour believe 
now, that no other books are at all canonical, or truly and 
certainly to us God’s Word, of whose authority there has been 
doubt in the Church. For then what shall become, some 
will say, of the book of Esther, but I will say, (as of Tobit, 
Judith, Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the ad- 
ditaments of Daniel, the history of Maccabees, so also) of 
the Apocalypse of S. John, the Epistles 2nd and 3rd of John, 
of James, Jude, the 2nd of Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
that I mention not now the last chapter of S. Mark from 
verse 9, the history of the woman taken in adultery, Jo. vii, 
with the last verse of the seventh chapter, the history of Christ’s 
sweating as it were great drops of blood, Luke xxu. 41. 
Even whole Churches, and many of those very authors which 
you allege for your conclusion, have but too much doubted 
of many of those, which you (notwithstanding such doubting 
of theirs) do now firmly believe to be God’s Word, as they are 


‘ Tt was 10 years after, Ed. VI.’s Articles were made 1552, Elizabeth’s anno 
1562,—[Barl. } 

































τον CL AES γι, 















LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 415 


and ought to be acknowledged; and our very 6th Article saith, 
that ‘all the books of the New Testament, as they are com- 
monly received, we do receive and account them canonical.” 
But it is impossible to imagine the authors of the Article igno- 
rant of the doubt [that] had been of many of those books of 
the New Testament, then and now commonly received and 
by them there intended. Therefore the foregoing part of the 
same Article,—these words, “ those books of the Old and New 
Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the 
Church,’—were not meant as a description or definition of 
canonical books simply, (for then it would be apertly false,) 
but of such canonical books in which, (God be blessed,) being 
themselves uncontroverted, all controversies about matters of 
faith and things needful to salvation might be determined ; for 
that the Article averred, that they were all contained therein. 

And, in the next place, what before I advertised, that 
in the Bible put forth in English then in King Edward’s 
time‘, I am sure in the Bishop’s Bible! set forth anno 1585, 
in recension of all the books at the beginning, it is advertised, 
that the books apocryphal are two, viz., the 3rd and 4th 
of Esdras, (as they were and now are commonly reputed by 
the Church of Rome, and ours then therein not disagreeing :) 
and “ Here endeth the book of the Prophet Baruch,” is said at 


* [In the Coverdale Bible, ed. 1535, 
no sucli recension is found. On the 
other hand, there is (near the begin- 
ning of the volume) a table of the ‘ Bokes 
of the whole Bible,’ &c., without either 
Apocrypha or New Testament. Then, 
immediately before the book of Genesis, 
occurs another table, with the cata- 


logues of the ‘‘ Apocrypha’ and of the 


New Testament following that of the 
Old. Again, the Apocrypha, in the 
body of the volume, is divided from 
the strictly canonical books by a sepa- 
rate title-page of its own, viz. ‘‘ Apo- 
erypha: the Books and Treatises, 
which among the Fathers of old are 


2 é 
“ Esdras 


not reckoned to be of like authority ;” 
&c. Then, after the catalogue, at the 
foot of this title-page to the Apocrypha, 
itis noted: ‘‘ Unto these also belongeth 
Baruch, whom we have set among the 
Prophets, next unto Jeremy, because 
he was his seribe, and in his time.’ Pi 

1 [The recension, to which Gunning 
appears to allude, may be seen in the 
Bishop’s Bible, ed. 1572, in a table 
which begins with the words: ‘‘ The 
whole scripture of the Bible is divided 
into two Testaments,’ &c.; and in 
which the third and fourth books of 
Esdras only are mentioned as Apocry- 
phal, thus, 


Ξ Whiche booke is Apocryphus, 


4, Whiche booke is also Apochryphus,” &e. 


On the other hand, it is to be observed, 
that in the “ Order of the Books of the 
Old Testament,’ which is given after 
the Preface of this Bible, the apocry- 
phal books are recounted under the 


following title, “The fourth part of 
the Bible, called dApocryphus.’—The 
books themselves are also printed, as a 
distinct part, with separate title-page, 
pagination, We. 


410 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


the end of Baruch™, not only calling Baruch a Prophet, but 
avouching that to be his book or prophecy: and, if it be λόγος 
προφητικὸς, ’tis then sure canonical, 2 Pet. 1. 19. In the first 
Common Prayer of King Edward’s time”, in the Communion 
Service, under the title of “Sentences of Holy Scripture,” there 
are two taken out of Tobit. In the Common Prayer-books ever 
since Lessons are taken out of those books for feasts of highest 
note sometimes, as Whit-Sunday°, when all the people are 
supposed present, with setting aside those chapters of cano- 
nical Scripture which otherwise came then in order to be read. 

Some of the Church prayers take their prefaces manifestly 
from out of those books, as that on Good Friday, “ Merciful 
God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that Thou 
hast made,” &c., and so also in the Collect for the first day 
of Lent: and in the Collect for the eleventh Sunday after 
Trinity, “ God, who declarest Thy almighty power most chiefly 
in shewing mercy and pity,” &c. But it is most evident by 
the Books of Homilies, which the thirty-fifth Article saith 
* contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for 
these times :” but that could not be “ godly doctrine, and ne- 
cessary for these times,” which should contradict the sixth 
Article put forth at the same time with that thirty-fifth Arti- 
cle.—Pag. 160? of the edition 16238, second part of Sermon 
of Almsdeeds, in second page, ‘The Holy Ghost teacheth in 
sundry places of Scripture, Tob. iv., Ecclus. 11.”—Pag. 74, in 
the first part of the Sermon of the Misery of Man, pag. 1, 
“And we read that Judith, Esther, Job, Jeremy, with other 
holy men and women in the Old Testament, did use sack- 
cloth,” &c. ;—in marg. Judith iv., ix.; Job xii.; Jerem. xxy. 

Page 48°, the first part of the Sermon of Swearing, prope 
jinem, “And Almighty God by the wise man saith, That 
man that sweareth much shall be full of sm, and the 


m [Inthe above edition of the Bishop’s 
Bible, the words in full are, ‘‘ The ende 
of the prophete Baruch, whiche is not 
in the canon of the Hebrue.’’—See fol. 
Ixxiiii. of the ““ Volume of the bookes 
called Apocrypha,” &c. | 

" [See ‘The Booke of the Common 
Prayer,” &c., Lond. 1549, fol. exiii.— 
Then shall follow for the Offertory one 
or more of these Sentences of Holy 
Scripture, &c. | 


© [In the Common Prayer-Books 
from A.D. 1604, after the Hampton 
Court Conference, till the Savoy Con- 
ference, the first Lesson in the afternoon 
for Whit-Sunday is Wisdom i.; but in 
Elizabeth’s book, A.D. 1559, itis Deut. 
xviil, as now.—In Edward’s Prayer- 
Books, there are no first Lessons given. | 

P [See edit. Lond. 1846, p. 414. ] 

4 [Ibid., p. 12.] 

T [p. 75. ] 


; 
Ἢ 
; 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 417 


scourge of God shall not depart from his house :”’—in marg- 
Eeclus. xxii. 

Page 65%, in the second part of the Sermon of the fear of 
death: “Now the holy Fathers of the Old Law, and all 
faithful and righteous men which departed before our Saviour 
Christ’s ascension, did by death depart from trouble unto 
rest, from the hands of their enemies into the hands of God, 
from sorrows and sickness into joyful refreshings in Abra- 
ham’s bosom, a place of all comfort and consolation, as the 
Scripture doth plainly by manifest words testify. The book of 
Wisdom saith, (marg. Wisdom ui.) that “the righteous men’s 
souls be in the hands of God, and no torments shall touch 
them. They seemed in the eyes of foolish men to die, and 
their deaths were counted miserable, and their departing out 
of this world wretched: but they be in rest.” And another 
place saith, (marg. Wisd. iv.) that “the righteous shall live for 
ever, and their work’ is with the Lord, and their minds be? 
οὐδε God who is above all: therefore they shall receive a 
glorious kingdom and a beautiful crown at the Lord’s hand.” 
And in another place the same book saith, ‘The righteous 
though he be prevented with sudden death, .. he shall be 
there, where he shall be refreshed.” Of Abraham’s bosom 
Christ’s words be so plaim, that a Christian man need no 
more proof of it. Now then, if this were the state of the 
holy fathers and righteous men, before the coming of our 
Saviour, and before He was glorified, how much more then 
ought all we to have a stedfast faith, and a sure hope of this 
blessed state and condition after death, seeing that our Sa- 
_viour now hath performed the whole work of our redemp- 
tion, and is gloriously ascended up into heaven, to prepare 
our dwelling-place with Him.” 

Page 70', in the second part of the Sermon of Obedience, 
“ Also in the book of Wisdom we may evidently learn, (marg. 
Wisd. vi.) that a king’s power,” &c.,.... “that they should 
acknowledge themselves to have all their power and strength 
not from Rome, but immediately from God most highest.” 

Page 17" of the second tome, the first part of the Sermon 
against the peril of Idolatry: “'The weakness, vileness and 


®[par. iii, p. 108.7] * [par.i. p. 111.] 5 [p. 188.—See also par. iii. p. 260. ] 


COSIN. 2 ΕΘ 





[ re- 


ward,”’ ] 





1[‘ abhor- 
ring.”’ ] 


418 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


foolishness in device of images, whereby we have dishonoured 
Him,” (God,) .. . “saith the Prophet Baruch.” (Bar. vi.) 

Page 87. pt.3.% “The rude people specially, as the Scrip- 
ture teacheth,” (marg. Sap. xiii., xiv.) “are in danger of super- 
stition and idolatry.” Ibid., ‘The ignorant and gross people, 
‘like unto the horses and mules, in whom is no under- 
standing,’ whose peril and danger to fall on heaps of idolatry 
by occasion of images the Scripture specially foreshews and 
gives warning of” :—marg. Sap. xiii, xiv. 

Page 108*, in the Sermon against the Excess of Apparel: 
“Thus the noble and holy woman Queen Esther, and the 
holy woman Judith, be commended in Scripture for allow- 
ing‘ such vanities, which by constraint and great necessity, 
against their hearts’ desire, they were compelled to wear for 
a time.” 

Page 156, 157, in the first part of the Sermon of Alms- 
deeds: “Such an one was Abraham,” . . . “such an one was 
his kimsman Lot,” .. . “such were the holy fathers Job and 
Tobit,” &e. 

Page 160, in the second part of the Sermon of Almsdeeds : 
“The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry 
places of the Scripture, saying, (marg. Tobit iv.) ‘ Merciful- 
ness and almsgiving purgeth from all sin, and delivereth from 
death, and suffereth not the soul to come into darkness ;?”’ &e. 

‘Page 2817, in the first part of the Sermon against wilful 
Rebellion: “ Will ye hear yet what the Prophet Baruch saith 
unto God’s people in their captivity? (marg. Baruch i. 11.) 
‘ Pray ye,’ saith the Prophet, ‘for the life of Nebuchadnezzar 
the king of Babylon, and for the life of Balthasar his son, 
that their days may be as the days of heaven ;’” &e. 


Desunt cetera. 


Y Pag. 57. pt.3 [of] Sermon against “hip! ἢ 
the Peril of Idolatry. [See pp. 253, Υ [p. 410.] 
260, 261.] * [p. 596. } 











LETTERS FROM DR. COSIN TO MR. GUNNING. 
[ORIGINALS *.] 


Paris, March 21, 1657. 
SIR, 

Ir you had not said, in the end of your last letter, that you 
intended by the post then next to come, or within a short 
time after, to send me two such other? sheets of your animad- 
versions, as you have already begun to address unto me, 1 
should have returned you an answer long before this. And 
still I expect what you have to say more, that one reply may 
serve for all. 

In the meanwhile, if the stationer importuned and pressed 
you to prepare the book, I will assure you it was more than 
I gave him any directions to do, and more than he will 
acknowledge to have done himself. For, when he wrote to 
me about saying somewhat to the reader, I wished him only 
to ask, whether you intended to say any thing for that 
purpose or no, and added that, if you did not intend it, I 
would then say somewhat myself. And, because his answer 
was, that he thought you would do it, therefore did I altoge- 
ther neglect it, as I should have done the printing of the 
book itself, (which for your sake I compiled,) if both in your 
own name, and many others’ whom you highly valued, you 
had not so earnestly moved me to give my consent thereunto. 
In the preface that I have now made, I have made mention 
of you according to your merit, and said what I thought be- 
fitted me to do concerning the whole matter; which I ever 
apprehended (from the time of your first letter to me) to con- 
sist in answering what the defenders of the Council of Trent 
had to say against us, and our article, in this particular: and, 


® [Thus in the Baker MS. in the > [That is, in continuation of what 
Brit. Mus., where these letters are was contained in the foregoing letter 
preserved.—See Collect.ad Acad.Can- from Gunning, to which this is a 
tab. spectant., Biblioth. Harl., num. reply. | 
7033, (Plut. lxv. B.) fol. 174.] 


Ee2 





420 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


when that was done, I thought all had been done: for I 
never knew of any other that excepted against the declaration 
of the Church of England; which, having so many adversaries 
already, needs not to have any new doubts against it raised 
up amongst ourselves. But there is so small a difference 
between your sense of the article and mine, that I scarce 
know yet, by all that you have written, where we disagree 
one from another. For, if you have had leisure to read the 
book through, you will find that both you and I are of one 
mind; as I shall further make it plain to you in the answer 
that I am about to send you more at large. And therefore 
he that hath told both me and others, that you differ from 
me, that you are not satisfied, that you have refused to 
preface or approve the book, that you have declared yourself 
to this purpose, not only once, twice, or thrice, (they be his 
own words,) but many times more, and at table in public 
before company, adding withal, that sundry false and suppo- 
sititious authors® are cited in the book, (which I am sure is 
not so, having had care to note every author, that was but 
doubted of never so little,)—alk this might have well been 
spared, and no such exceptions given out against the History, 
as I believe you never made. And, if you be unsatisfied in 
any thing, I beseech you tell it to me, that I may return you 
the best and the clearest answers I can, without expressing 
yourself to others, specially to such as are apt to take ad- 
vantage and make ill use of it, perhaps both to your pre- 
judice and mine. However, these pretended exceptions 
against the book were somewhat untimely reported just now, 
when it is ready to be published: and I desire that both the 
person who hath made the report, and all others, should know 
that you and I can agree well enough without any consider- 
able difference between us, either in the sense of this article 
or any other. I have more to tell you in my next. 

What paper that is, which is read and talked of among you 
(as mine) concerning the French ordinations, I know not: but 
some discourse I made upon that subject, and their Church 


© [This was the argument by which _ phis,’’ printed in the second part of his 
the Jesuits attempted to damage Cosin’s book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, 8vo. 
book.—See Labbe’s “‘ Censura Tabule Par. 1660, p. 811—817. ] 
Chronologice, quam Jo. Cosin subje- 4 [See Letter to Cordel, p. 401. ] 
cit Historiz Scholastic de Apocry- 


at? Le -- 


᾿ 











LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 421 


and Sacraments here, about seven years since, which then 
gave abundant satisfaction to somebody, who now seems not 
altogether so well to like it, I cannot tell upon what score. 
If a perfect copy of my writing (which is long) be among you, 
I fear not the censure of any moderate and learned man 
whatsoever; and, if the Presbyterians think to get any advan- 
tage by it, they will much deceive themselves. It was written 
against the rash assertion of some forward persons here, that 
said absolutely®, there was neither any Minister, nor any 
Sacrament, nor any Church, in France amongst the French 
reformed; of which mind neither myself nor any other 
honest man must ever be. This is enough for the present, 
till you hear further from, 


Sir, your very affectionate and most 


humble Servant, 


510: 


I had the 25, for which you would 
of yourself return my due acknow- 
ledgment for me, as I do now to you. 


(Superscribed :) For my honoured Friend, Mr. Gunning. 


TO MR. PETER GUNNING, AT LONDON. 


Sir, 

I Love not to have a letter from any of my friends lay too 
long upon my hands, and therefore, though you were pleased 
to say in the close of your last, that you intended to add two 
sheets more of animadversions upon my book, (the expec- 
tation whereof made me all this while delay my answer,) 
yet, because they are not yet come, I thought it would not 
be amiss to give this return unto what you have written 
already. 

And, in the first place, I am to thank you, both for your 


“ [See what Basire says, in defence of Cosin’s view of this matter, in his Dead 
Man’s Real Speech, pp. 63, 64.) 








4.22 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


acceptance of my pains and diligence in compiling the book, 
and for the great expressions that you make now to me, (as 
you have been often pleased to do likewise unto many others,) 
of the worth and value that you set upon the book itself, 
which being an historical disquisition of the canon now con- 
tested between the present Church of Rome and ours, con- 
cerning the indubitate books of Scripture, you give me leave 
to tell the world, that in your judgment, as it is the only 
way to try the truth between us, so it is a work more ex- 
actly and usefully penned for that purpose, than any you 
have read of that kind before‘, professing freely that herein 
you are fully satisfied, and that the Trent canon (which can 
never be justified) is clearly overthrown by it; our own arti- 
cle, and the universal tradition of the Church, being made 
good against all that the Romanists have to say for them- 
selves, or to plead against us. 

And, when this was done, I made full account that I had 
nothing else to do for the justifying of our article from any 
other opposition or scruple that might be made about it. 
For I pray give me leave to put you in mind, that this was 
all the doubt which you made to me in your first letters, 
whether the Roman party or ours had the better and clearer 
tradition of the Church in numbering the canonical books of 
Scripture, which you thought 5. Augustine and the coun- 
cil of Carthage had determined on their side, S. Hierome, 
Ruffin, and the council of Laodicea, on ours. 

From hence I took occasion to search higher, and to look 
into the records of antiquity, that we might the better see 
how this matter had gone before 8. Augustine’s time, who 
being so tenacious of ecclesiastical tradition in all other mat- 
ters, we had no reason to think that he would vary from it 
in this. And indeed, unless we shall make him to contradict 
both himself and all the fathers that were before him, besides 
all those that followed after him, he can be no witness for 
the new Roman canon’. The subsequent testimonies are so 
abundant, and so evident for us, that I know not what can be 
saidagainst them. And hereinif you fully agree with me, (as 
you profess to do,) I trust the scruples that seem still to re- 


f [See Gunning’s Letter, p. 411.] 
8 [See Schol. Hist., num. eee Ixxx., Ixxxi,, vol. iii. pp. 124—142.] 











LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 423 


main with you concerning some lesser matters, and the right 
understanding of our own article in the distinction there 
set forth between canonical and doubtful books of Scripture, 
will the sooner be satisfied. 

1. But, first, I shall take notice of your place in Origen, 
which is not (as you quote it) in his second, but in his third 
book against Celsus", nor doth it speak of any more difference 
among the first Christians concerning their belief and recep- 
tion of Divine Scriptures, than there was among the same 
believers concerning the resurrection of the dead, if it were 
then already passed, the day of judgment, if it were then 
near at hand, and the Jewish ceremonies, if they were of 
necessity still to be continued in the Church of the Gentiles : 
all which Origen sums up in those words of S. Paul, where 
he taxeth some particular and vain persons with making 
shipwreck of the true Faith (as Hymenzus and Alexander 
did) by giving heed to fables and other matters that engender 
strife. The dissension, therefore, that was raised in those 
first times about some books of Scripture, whether they were 
to be received or not, and firmly believed to be divine, pro- 
ceeded not (in Origen’s sense) from any doubt that the Apo- 
stles, or the true believers, then had of them, but only from 
some such persons among those believers, as those were that 
either questioned the resurrection of the dead, or urged the 
necessity of the Jewish ceremonies: which we must not call 
a debate or common scruple of the Church, but the alterca- 
tions and wranglings of certain particular men in the Church: 
for Origen meant no more. Among those men, that had 
been then converted to the Christian Faith ἀρχῆθεν, mox ab 
initio, the Samaritans were a part, (Act. viii.;) and of the Sa- 


h [Vid. Orig. contr. Cels., lib. iil. ὃ 
11.—Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1733, tom. i. 
p- 458.--φησὶ δὲ καὶ ὅτι ἐν ἐφρόνουν 
πάντες" οὐδ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ ὁρῶν, ὅτι ἀρχῆ- 
θεν περὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πεπιστευομένοις 
θείοις εἶναι βιβλίοις ἐκδοχὴν γεγόνασι 
διαφωνίαι τῶν πιστευόντων. ἔτι γοῦν 
τῶν ἀποστολῶν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ διδασκόντων 
τὰ ἐκείνου μαθήματα, ζήτησις οὐκ ὀλίγη, 
πρὸς ἀλλήλους γεγένηται παρὰ τοῖς ἀπὸ 
Ιουδαίων πιστεύουσι περὶ τῶν ἐξ ἐθνῶν 
ἐπερχομένων τῷ λόγῳ, πότερον δεῖ τὰ 
ἸΙουδαϊκὰ αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν ἔθη, ἢ τὸ περὶ 
καθαρῶν καὶ ἀκαθάρτων βρωμάτων βάρος 
ἀφαιρεῖν, ὡς οὐκ ἐπεῖγον, ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ 





πάτρια καταλιπόντων ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι καὶ 
πιστευόντων τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ταῖς 
Παῦλου ἐπιστολαῖς, γενομένου ἐν τῷ 
χρόνῳ τῶν Ἰησοῦν ἐωρακότων, εὐρίσκεται 
λεγόμενά τινα, ὡς ξητηθέντων τινῶν 
περὶ ἀναστάσεως, καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἤδη αὐτὴν 
γεγονέναι: καὶ περὶ ἡμέρας Κυρίου, πό- 
τερον ἐνέστηκεν, ἢ μὴ. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ, 
ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας, 
καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνόμου γνώσεως" 
ἥν τινες ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, περὶ τὴν πίσ- 
τιν ἐναυάγησαν᾽ δηλωτικόν ἐστιν, ὅτι 
am ἀρχῆς γεγόνασί τινες παρεκδοχαὶ, 
οὐδέπω (ὡς οἴεται Κέλσος) πολλῶν τῶν 
πιστευόντων γεγενημένων. ἢ 


424, LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


maritans Origen had said before, (lib.i. versus finem’,) that they 
acknowledged no more of the Bible to be Divine Scripture, 
than the five books of Moses only. Peradventure these men, 
or at least some of them, retained their error, and contended 
with the Apostles concerning the rest of the Scriptures, (the 
writings of the Prophets,) as well as the converted Pharisees 
did theirs, and dissented from them concerning circumcision, 
(Acts xv.;) which is enough to make good all that Origen 
said against Celsus, either of the one matter or of the other, 
without imagining a debate or dissension to have been then 
made among the first Christians about the apocryphal books, 
whereof Origen maketh no mention at all, but where he re- 
jects them from the canon, as J have more at large declared in 
that paragraph of the History that belongs to his testimony. 
This, which I have said and added here, is to let you see that 
the conclusion which you made to yourself out of Origen 
was not well grounded, when (as you say) you collected 
from his words against Celsus, that this debate about the 
apocryphal books was so early a controversy in the Church, 
as that it began anon after the beginning of Christianity ', 
and was differently stated by the ancient Fathers. 

2. Nor are you any whit better grounded for what you 
bring out of Epiphanius for his use of the word apocryphal, 
and applying it to the Revelation of 5. John. For he does 
not so; nor can it ever be proved that he called that book 
an apocryphal writing, as you conceive he did in his Gnostic 
heresy, (that is, Her.26™,) where his διὸ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις 
ἀναγινώσκοντες is spoken not of himself and the Church, as 
you render it, “‘ wherefore we reading in the apocryphal writ- 
ings, I beheld a tree,” &c., (viz. Revel. cap. xxii.,) but of the 
Gnostic heretics, that had their apocryphal books to them- 
selves, wherein they mixed truth and falsehood together for 
the better advantage and defence of their own wicked and 
shameless actions. He had said before of them, (ibid. ᾧ 1.") 


1 [See lib. 1. ὃ 49. p. 868.---κἂν of 
μόνου δὲ Μωσέως παραδεχόμενοι τὰς Bi- 
βλους Σαμαρεῖς ἢ Σαδδουκαίοι φάσκωσιν 
ἐκείνοις πεπροφητεῦσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν. | 

k [See num. xlix. vol. iii. pp. 87—411. ] 

1 [See Gunning’s Letter, p. 410, et 
seq. | 

" [See Gunning’s Letter, p. 412.] 

n [{S. Epiph. adv. Gnosticos, Heer. 


xxvi. § 1.—Op., ed. Par. 1622, tom. i. 
p. 82,---οὗτοι δὲ of τούτῳ τῷ Νικολάῳ 
συνεζευγμένοι, πάλιν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ὡς ἀπὸ 
οὐρίου wod ὄφεως σκορπίοι, ἢ ἐξ ἀσπίδων 
γεγεννημένοι, τινὰ ἡμῖν παρεισφέρουσι 
κενοφωνίας ὀνόματα, καὶ βίβλους πλάτ- 
τουσι, Νωρίαν τινὰ βίβλον καλοῦντες, 
καὶ ἐξ ὑπονοίας Ἑλληνικῆς δεισιδαιμο- 
vias μεταποιοῦντες τὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τοῖς 








τ 


LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 42 


οὗτοι δὲ... τινὰ ἡ μῖν, K.T.rA. Isti autem... . quedam nobis 
inaniter sonantia librosque commenti sunt, . . . atque ex super- 
stitiosis gentilium opinionibus conformatis ad institutum suum, 
nugis illis ac fabulis, veritati mendacium admiscent. And 
again: (§ 9.) φέρουσι δὲ ἡμῖν, κατλ. Afferunt nobis ex tam 
admirabili Prophetd turpem narrationem, .... nec illos pudet, 
&e. Sunt et ex tis nonnull, qui adulterinum quoddam poema 
venditant, quod opus Perfectionis Evangelium inscribunt .... 
Alu Evangelium Eve sine ullo pudore jactitant .... (δ 3.) 
Stolidis testimoniis ac visis nituntur. . . Ita enim inquiunt : In 
arduo monte constiteram, cum ecce video procerum hominem, 
&c. Hec igitur atque his similia commenti Gnostici a veritate 
exciderunt ...($ 4.9) Que apud istos fiunt, turpe est et dicere, 
εν Quoties mulier menstruos fluxus patitur, feedissimum illum 
sanguinem collectum una omnes absorbent: atque hic est, in- 
quiunt, Sanguis Christi. .. . Then, (§5.") Propterea in Apo- 
cryphis legunt : (which is the place you cite:) Vidi arborem 
duodecim fructus quotannis ferentem: et dixit mihi, Hoc est 
lignum vite. Id ipsum de menstruis mulierum profluviis inter- 
pretantur. And all this I have quoted at large, that you may 
see at one view, how all these heretical, adulterous, apocry- 
phal writings, (whereof the Gnostics made such use for the 
maintaining of their own bestial impieties amongst them- 
selves,) follow one another in order, and belong only to the 
same sect, which Epiphanius and the Church of God ab- 
horred: so far any of them from being Divine Scriptures 
then, or afterwards received into the Bible, (as the Revela- 


Ἕλλησι μυθώδη ῥαψωδίαν καὶ φαντασίαν, 
οὕτω τὸ ψεῦδος τῇ ἀληθείᾳ παραπλέ- 
κουσι.] 

© [Ibid., p. 88.---πῳρἰέρουσι δὲ ἡμῖν ἐκ 
τούτου τοῦ θαυμασιωτάτου Προφήτου 
διήγησιν αἰσχρὰν, ὅπως φθοριμαίοις σώ- 
μασι πλησιάσαι πεισθῶμεν, καὶ τῆς ἄνω- 
θεν ἐλπίδος ἐκπέσωμεν, οὐκ αἰσχυνόμε- 
νοι αὐτοῖς τοῖς ῥήμασι τὰ τῆς πορνείας 
διηγεῖσθαι πάλιν ἐρωτικὰ τῆς Κύπριδος 
ποιητεύματα. ἄλλοι δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν πάλιν 
ἐπίπλαστον εἰσάγουσιν ἀγώνιμόν τι ποί- 
μα, ᾧ ποιητεύματι ἐπέθεντο ὄνομα, Εὐ- 
αγγέλιον τελειώσεως τοῦτο φάσκοντες. 
καὶ ἀληθῶς οὐκ Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ 
πένθους τελείωσις. πᾶσα γὰρ 7) τοῦ θα- 
νάτου τελείωσις ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ ὑποσπορᾷ 
τοῦ διαβόλου ἐμφέρεται. ἄλλοι δὲ οὐκ 
αἰσχύνονται λέγοντες Εὐαγγέλιον Εὔας. 
εἰς ὄνομα γὰρ αὐτῆς, K.T.A. | 


Ρ {Ibid., p. 84.---οΟρμοῦνται δὲ ἀπὸ 
μωρῶν μαρτυριῶν, καὶ ὀπτασιῶν, ἐν ᾧ 
Εὐαγγελίῳ ἐπαγγέλλονται. φάσκουσι 
γὰρ οὕτως" ὅτι ἔστην ἐπὶ ὄρους ὑψηλοῦ, 
καὶ εἶδον ἄνθρωπον μακρὸν, κιτ.λ.. ..- 
ταῦτά τοι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα εἰσηγούμενοι 
οἱ ἀμφὶ τὴν γνῶσιν συνεζευγμένοι τῇ 
τοῦ Νικολάου αἱρέσει, τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκ- 
πεπτώκασιν, K.T.A. 

4 [Ibid., Ὁ. 86.---κατὰ τὸν ἅγιον ἀπόσ-: 
TOAOY, ὅτι τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς γινόμενα αἰσ- 
χρόν ἐστι καὶ λέγειν. .. . .- ὡσαύτως 
δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς γυναικὸς, ὅταν γένη- 
ται αὐτὴν γενέσθαι ἐν ῥύσει τοῦ αἵματος, 
τὸ καταμηνίον συναχθὲν αὐτῇ εἷμα τῆς 
ἀκαθαρσίας, ὡσαύτως λαβόντες κοινῇ ἐσ- 
θίουσι. καὶ τοῦτό, φασιν, ἐστὶ τὸ αἷμα 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ.] 

‘ [See this passage cited in Gun- 
ning’s Letter, p. 412. ] 


1 [ Apoc. 


xxii. 1,2] 


426 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


tion of S. John always was,) that they are here in this place 
branded altogether with the name of vain, idle, superstitious, 
and lying fables. Nor will you find the words, that they 
read out of their Apocrypha, to be recorded in the twenty- 
second of the Apocalypse. For in our Apocalypse’ we read of 
a river :—Ostendit mihi Angelus fluvium (purum) aque vite, 
splendidum tanquam chrystallum, procedentem de sede Dei et 
Agni, ... et ex utrdque parte fluminis lignum vite, afferens fruc- 
tus duodecim per menses singulos, et folia ligni ad sanitatem 
gentium. Here is a river clear as crystal, and on either side of 
it a tree of life, that bare twelve manner of fruits every month. 
But in the Gnostics’ Apocrypha they read of a tree only, 
that bear twelve fruits in a year, which by an insolent and 
wicked profanation of 8. John’s words, applying them to 
their own shameless purpose, they called the tree of life. 
And how can any argument be drawn from hence, that 
therefore Epiphanius accounted the Revelation to be an apo- 
cryphal book ?—who indeed was so far from any such imagina- 
tion, that he doth not only expressly number it among the 
divine books of the New Testament, (Her. 48, § 108,) ἐν τῇ 
καινῇ Διαθήκῃ ὁ ἅγιος ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει, K.T.X., 
calling it the Revelation of Christ, (ibid.) τάδε ἀπεκάλυψε 
Κύριος, a sincere doctrine of truth *, a book of Prophecy cer- 
tainly proceeding from the Holy Ghost, (Har. 51, § 32, 885) 
[λόγου προφητικοῦ ὄντος,] ἐκ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου κατὰ ἀλή- 
θειαν, but says likewise that 5. John the Apostle and Evan- 
gelist wrote it, and that the author both of his Gospel and 
Epistles, and of his Apocalypse, was one and the same person, 
(ibid. § 845,) τὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου βιβλία, φημι δὲ ᾽Ιω- 
ἄννου τό τε Εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν, τάχα δὲ καὶ 
τὰς ᾿Επιστολάς" συνάδουσι γὰρ καὶ αὗται τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ καὶ 
τῇ ᾿Αποκαλύψει. After the reading of all this, I believe you 
will not say again’, that “ Epiphanius held the Revelation to 
be apocryphal, or a book that had not been all along confes- 
sedly and uncontrovertedly the Word of God, though to some 
men it may be undoubtedly and certainly so now.” For, nei- 


5 [Op., tom. i. p. 411. ] —Her. li. § 32.] 

τ [οὐκ αἰδοῦνται δὲ πάλιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι u[ pp. 454—456. | 
κατὰ τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιωάννου εἰρη- * fubi supr. | 
μένων ἐξοπλίζομενοι, νομίζοντες μή πη Υ [See page 412. ] 


/ , 
ἄρα δύνανται τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀνατρέπειν. 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 427 


ther in Epiphanius’s time, nor before, nor after, since it was 
first written, was it ever otherwise held and believed to be by 
the Church, though some few particular men may now and 
then have had a pick against it, to raise scruples about it, 
where none need to be. 

3. As little reason is there to doubt of “ the Epistles of 
S. James and S. Jude, the second Epistle of S. Peter, or the 
Epistle of 5. Paul to the Hebrews, besides those parts,” (which 
you say you will not mention,) “ of the last chapter of S. Mark, 
of the eighth chapter of S. John, and of the twenty-second in 
S. Luke :” as little reason, I say, hath any man to doubt of 
these, as of the Apocalypse, and the two last Epistles of 5. 
John, whether they all be (and so have always been in the 
Church) confessedly and undoubtedly the Word of God, and 
the canonical parts of Divine Scripture. For, though some 
private persons have been otherwhiles of another mind, yet 
it can never be proved (and I have already said as much in 
the ninth paragraph of the Scholastical History’) that either 
any entire Church, or any considerable parts of a Church, any 
national or provincial council, any synods of the Bishop and 
his clergy, or any multitude of men in their public confes- 
sions, have ever made any question or doubt of them at all, 
(as of the apocryphal books in the Old Testament they have 
done confessedly and universally,) but received them with 
reverence and constancy of belief, as all the Churches in 
Christendom do still at this day. I know what hath been 
said against the Apocalypse, and the Epistle to the Hebrews ; 
but it hath been heretofore at all times counted a heresy 
-to reject them, or to call the canonical authority of them 
into question: whereof I take notice in the sixty-second and 
seventy-third paragraphs of the History’, which if you please 
to read and weigh without prejudice, together with the cita- 
tions that are there brought out of antiquity, as well to con- 
firm the reasons that I give for the universal and undoubted 
reception of these books, as to answer the objections made 
against them, I doubt not but you will be satisfied, and be 
of my mind (which is the mind of the Church of England) 
for their perpetual and undoubted authority. The same or 
the like answers may be brought for the defence of S. James, 

z [See vol. iii. p. 7.] @ [See vol. iii. pp. 73, 74, 75, 101, 102. ] 


4.28 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


S. Jude, and S. Peter’s Epistle, together with the rest before 
named. For, when our Article of the Church of England 
saith of these, (and other canonical books there numbered,) 
* never was there any doubt in the Church,” as this doth 
not hinder nor deny but that both some perverse heretics, and 
other some critical, curious, and bold men (yet herein incon- 
siderable) might either doubt of them, or reject them by 
themselves, so neither doth their doubting and rejecting them 
hinder and deny, but that the great body of the Church it- 
self never doubted of them, but always received and main- 
tained them, as certain divine and canonical Scriptures. 
What are four or five mev, (make them four or five times as 
many more,)—what are these, that started up now and then, 
to the universal consent of the whole body of the Church 
besides in all ages? Paucorum ἀβλεψία perperam adscri- 
bitur Ecclesie: and I do not think there can be a greater 
number named (the ancient heretics excepted) for sixteen 
ages together, that jointly or severally have opposed or 
scrupled the canonical authority of these books. But, as I 
said, let them be more, let them be as many as there were 
among the Jews: may it not truly be affirmed, that the 
Hagiographa and the Prophets were all such canonical books, 
whereof there was never any doubt in the Church, (of the 
Old, or of the New Testament,) notwithstanding that the 
Sadducees were so supercilious as to call them all in question, 
and to hold none confessedly and undoubtedly (by all parties) 
canonical, but the five books of Moses only? This was their 
case in the Old Testament, and it is alike in the New; where, 
though some few men have been pleased to make no lesser 
scruples concerning the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and the 
Canticles, than other some? have done concerning those par- 
ticles of the Gospels and the Epistles afore-named, yet I be- 
lieve you will give us leave to say, that of the one sort there 
was never any doubt in the Church: and why then may we 
not say as much of the other? For the contradictors and 
scruplers of these latter sort of books in Eusebius, or ὅ. 
Hierome, (who yet rather scrupled the authors’ names, than 
the books themselves,) were a company of inconsiderable 
men: and from their time to ours we never heard of more 


» [See Schol. Hist., num. ix. p. 7; num. Ixxiv. p. 113, 114.] 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HCLY SCRIPTURE. 429 


than of Cajetan‘, and Erasmus’, together with two or three 
Lutherans®, (varying herein from the public consent of their 
own Churches,) that lessened the canonical and undoubted 
authority of them. De quibus etiam, an ita vere senserint, 
ampliandum est. 

4. And therefore we must not be of their mind (to whom 
you seem to incline) that say, on the other side, “no man 
can with any colour believe those books only to be canonical, 
or truly and certainly to us God’s Word, of whose authority 
there hath been no doubt in the Church.” For the Church 
of England receiveth no other into that number; nor was ever 
any other Church of other mind and belief, till the Church of 
Rome made themselves a new creed in the Council of Trent. 

5. Again, we must for the same reason altogether dissent 
from them that say, (as you likewise seem to do,) that “there 
hath been the same doubt made in the Church of the Apoca- 
lypse, together with the Epistles of S. John, S. James, S. 
Jude, S. Peter, and the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, 
besides some parts of the Gospels, which there hath been 
made of Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, ad- 
ditaments to Daniel, and the Maccabees.” For (to return 
your own words the other way) no man can with any colour 
believe it ; seeing it is most apparent, that these latter books 
have always had either an universal contradiction, or at least 
an universal doubt and uncertainty about them: the other 
not so, but only a few private scruples of them, which the 
body of the Church never regarded. 

6. I know not how to give any assent to what you say, 
when you say: “It is so easy to prove, that these books 
which we call apocryphal, (and whereof we have now only 
the Greek and Latin translations, with other versions out of 
them,) were at first written in Hebrew or Chaldee.” For, 


¢ [ Vid. Thom. de Vio Cajetani Comm. 
in Epist. ad Hebr., cap. i. v. 1.—Op. 
Theol., ed. Lugd. 1639, tom. v. p. 329; 
item, Comm. in Ep. 8S. Jacobi, 6.1. v. 1, 
p- 362; item, pref. in 2 S. Petr., p. 381; 
item, pref. in 2 Ep. S. Joh. fol. 398, B; 
item, in Ep. Jude, v. 1. fol. 399, B.— 
Conf. Bellarm., De Verbo Dei, lib. i. 
cap. xviii. tom. i. col. 69.] 

4 [Vid. Erasmi Annotat. in Ep. ad 
Hebr., not. 18.—Op., ed. Lugd. Batav. 
1705, tom. vi. coll. 1023, 1024; item, 





in Ep. S. Jacobi, not. 30, col. 1038; in 
2 S. Petr. not. 22,col.1068; in3S. Joh. 
not. 9, col. 1088; in Ep. Juda, not. 16, 
col. 1090; in Apoc. not. 3, coll. 1123— 
1126.—Conf. Bellarm., cap. xix. col. 
77.—Vid. etiam, cap. xvii. coll. 61, 63. ] 

e (Vid. Lutheri Enarrat. in Ep. 
Judz.—Op., ed. Witeb. 1554, tom. ν. 
fol. 500, B.—Conf. Bellarm., cap. xvii. 
col. 61; cap. xix. col. 75 ;—item, cap. 
x. col. 38, 41. | 


450 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


whereas you add, that “this may be proved from S. Hie- 
rome’s own confession for most of them, and for: the rest 
by authority equal to 8. Hierome,” I confess, that I could 
never yet meet either with any such confession of his‘, or 
with any such authority of others. Indeed Bellarmine 8, 
and they that trust to him, seem to say as much; but they 
say this, and many things besides, which neither they nor 
any of them will ever be able to prove. All that we find in 
S. Hierome® is no more, than that he found the first book 
of the Maccabees in Hebrew extant in his time, as he did 
likewise the book of Ecclesiasticus: in the same language, 
together with Tobit) and Judith‘ in Chaldee. Of all the other 
apocryphal books he found none rendered into these tongues. 
And it is more credible, that they were all originally written 
in Greek, “ cujus stylum et eloquentiam plerumque redolent} ;” 
and out of which as those Hebrew or Syriac and Chaldee 
copies seem to have been but versions in after times, so they 
were rare, and but in very few men’s hands to be found in 8. 
Hierome’s time, being now in our time wholly lost, which is 
no less than a prescription against them, (for Munster’s 
Hebrew edition of Tobit™ was but new,) that they were never 
received into the canon of the Bible. Sure I am the prologue 
of Ecclesiasticus® itself is against you in this particular: for 
he confesseth, that he wrote his book in a language different 
from that wherein his grandfather had written before him, 
“desiring to be read with favour, and craving pardon for 
some words, that might not peradventure have been so well 
expressed by him ina strange language ;” defictunt enim verba 
Hebraica, cum ad alteram linguam translata fuerint. And 
that altera lingua was no other than the Greek, the tongue 
that they spake in Egypt, when Ptolemy Euergetes was their 
king. Of Baruch both 5. Hierome® and Epiphanius? say, that 


f [ Vid. Schol. Hist., num. Ixx., lxxi., 1 (Vid. Pref. in libr. Salom., tom. 
Ixxii., Ixxiii., vol.iii. Ὁ. 90—112; item, ix. col. 1293, quoted below. } 
num. xxv. p. 18. Ὁ [Lib. Tobie Hebr., cum versione 


8 [ Vid. lib. i. cap. vii. coll. 26,27.—-?.] et annott. Seb. Munsteri, ad calc. op. 
h [Vid. S. Hier. in Prolog. Galeat., Grammat. Munsteri, Basil. 1542. ] 


sive Pref. in libr. Reg.—Op., ed. Val- [Vid. “The Prologue of the Wis- 

lars. 1734, tom. ix. col. 454. | dom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,” as it 
i (Vid. Prol. in libr. Salom., tom. stands before the book of Ecclus. } 

ix. col. 1293.] ° [Vid. Pref. in Jerem., tom. ix. col. 
i | Vid. Epist. ad Chrom. et Heliod., 783. ] 

sive Pref. in Tobiam, tom. x. col. 1, 2.] ? [ Vid. Heeres. viii. lib. ii—Op., tom. 


K [ Vid. Pref. in Judith, tom.x.col.21.] 1. p. 19. ] 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 431 


“the Hebrews never had it.” Of Wisdom, “nusguam apud 
Hebreos est, quin et ipse stylus Grecam eloquentiam redolet, 
et nonnulli scriptorum veterum hune esse Judei Philonis 
affirmant.” (ὃ. Hier. pref. in Proverb. Salomonis‘.) Of the 
additions to Daniel (in his preface to that book") he telleth us 
expressly : “ Daniel, apud Hebreos, nec Susanne habet Histo- 
riam, nec Hymnum trium puerorum, nec Belis Draconisque 
fabulas.” And of the second book of the Maccabees you con- 
fess as much yourself, as he doth in his Prologo Galeato’. 

7. By all this, which hath been already said, you may per- 
ceive the uncertainty and weakness of those grounds, where- 
upon you stood, to build all the rest of your discourse that 
followeth, as well concerning the controverted books them- 
selves, as the right understanding both of the ancient Fathers 
and the article of the Church of England about them : 

8. Wherein you say, ‘you agree thus far with me; that, 
first, those controverted books are not applied at all (much 
less with equal authority) to establish, as by firm proof, any 
doctrine that is not found in other uncontroverted books of 
Holy Scripture: secondly, that in this sense our Church doth 
deservedly put a difference between the one sort and the 
other.” And thus far indeed I do fully agree with you: but 
then, for the two reasons that you bring, and for the excep- 
tion that you make, and add at the end of your saying, I 
confess I cannot agree with you at all. 

9. Your first reason is, “ because some of those books have 
not been all along alike confessedly and uncontrovertedly the 
Word of God, though notwithstanding they may be now to 

some undoubtedly and certainly so.” And you instance in 
the Apocalypse, with other like books of the New Testament, 
which you conceive to have been as much doubted of and 
questioned in the Church as Tobit and Judith, with the other 
like books of the Old. But herein I have made it clear be- 
fore‘, how much you are mistaken: and therefore I can by no 
means assent to you in this reason. 

10. Your second is, “ because we have not now the originals 
of those questioned books in the Old Testament, which makes 
us unable to dispute alike firmly out of their translations 


9 ['tom. ix. col. 12938.] “" 5. [tom. ix. col. 455. ] 
τ [tom. ix. col. 1361.]} t | Vid. supr., p. 424—427. ] 


432 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


against contradictors, as we do out of those whose originals 
we have.” But here likewise your ground failed you, as I 
have said already. I add now, that, though the originals of 
those controverted books had been written in Hebrew or 
Chaldee, (as you thought they were,) yet that would not be 
enough to make them canonical books of Holy Scripture; to 
which there is somewhat else required, as I have at large de- 
clared in the second paragraph" of the History, and elsewhere ; 
being still confident, that not any one of those five marks 
and characters, whereby the undoubted authority of infallible 
Scripture is to be known from the nature and condition of 
all other books, can belong untothem. Here therefore I am 
forced to dissent from you again. 

11. But, when you make your exception to what you 
granted before, and say, that ‘no doctrine can be firmly 
established out of the sayings of these controverted books 
alone, (which is not found in the other uncontroverted books 
of Scripture,) except where we find such sayings of these 
books vouched often in the tradition and testimony of the 
ancient Fathers,’—herein you must give me leave to depart 
from your opinion upon a double score. For, first, I do not 
believe that you will find any such sayings, vouched by the 
constant tradition and testimony of antiquity, for the firm 
establishing of any such doctrine in the Church. And, 
secondly, if there might be any such matter found, as cer- 
tainly there is not, (which we maintain against the late 
Romanists, and all the other novellers,) yet would not this 
be sufficient to make good your exception. For be they 
Fathers, or be they Angels from heaven, that ground not 
themselves upon the undoubted Word of God already de- 
livered to us, we are not to receive their doctrine, as firmly 
established, or necessary for us to believe: which, after the 
prescript of the Apostle, the Church of England hath pub- 
licly declared, in aureo illo canone, (and we have all subscribed 
to it,) set as acorollary to my whole bookv: “ Ne quid unquam 
doceatur, §¢., nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrine V. et N. 
Testamenti, quodque ex illé ipsa doctrind Catholci Patres et 
Veteres Episcopi colligerint.” If they builded not their doc- 
trine upon that foundation, (as undoubtedly they do, where 

u [See vol. iii. p. 4. ] v [See Schol. Hist., p. 286. ] 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 433 


they consent together,) their ground would fail them, and we 
should not be bound to keep ourselves to it. 

12. Nor will it serve the turn to say, that the Church of 
England understood here the books of the Old Testament, as 
they were set forth and printed in the Bible of King Edward’s 
time, and in the time of his father before him. For, first, 
the Church of England did not in those times differ from all 
the Churches in Christendom which (notwithstanding their 
common Bible) constantly kept up the distinction between 
the canonical and apocryphal books thereof, as to the firm 
establishing of any necessary point of faith or doctrine by 
them. And, secondly, when that distinction began to be left 
off, and taken away by the new canon made at Trent, the 
Article of the Church of England declared against it, and 
continued the same distinction still, which together with 
S. Hierome and other doctors of the Church, both at home 
and abroad, she had always done before. 

13. And now I come to look upon your enquiry into the 
sense of the Article itself, which you think I have somewhat 
mistaken, and stretched it further than ever the reformers of 
the Church of England (the composers of that Article) in- 
tended it. For, when you have agreed with me in your 
former sense, (wherein, for the reasons that I gave above, I 
cannot altogether agree with you,) you add moreover, and 
say, that “these books may therefore be held to be apocry- 
phal, and invalid for the establishing of any doctrine by them, 
because they never were indited by God’s Spirit, but are 
mere human writings, though very excellent ones.” And you 


- subjoin: “If this be my sense, as to you it seems to be, that 


you must then suspend your consent at present :’ where you 
did not amiss to put an “if” to it. For truly, if this had 
been my sense barely, as you set it down, I confess I should 
then have mistaken both the article and myself. 

14. But, first, 1 do not deny the controverted books to be 
canonical, undoubted, and infallible Scriptures, only upon 
that score, because they can establish no true or wholesome 
doctrine, but because they can establish no necessary doctrine 
or point of faith to be firmly and universally believed upon 
their own only authority alone, (suppose it be some one or 


more points of faith and doctrine now in controversy between 
COSIN, : εἴ 


484. LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


the Church of Rome and us,) which the confessed and un- 
doubted books of Scripture will do by your own former con- 
fession. Secondly, I do not say, that the writers of those 
controverted books had not the Spirit of God to assist them 
at all, but that the Church was never assured they were im- 
mediately inspired to write canonical Scriptures: for cer- 
tainly it was God’s Holy Spirit, that otherwise guided and 
directed them to write so many heavenly rules of sound and 
good doctrine as they did, to set forth so great a number of 
religious examples for us to follow in the exercise of piety, 
magnanimity, constancy, chastity, courage, and patience, to- 
gether with other the like virtues,—matters so agreeable and 
consonant to the undoubted Scriptures of God, that no other 
writings of men are acknowledged by us to have had either 
the like portion of divme hght and God’s Holy Spirit in 
them, (eminent τ above all others of that kind,) or the like 
degree of honour given them by God’s Church; which is 
more than any writings after the Scriptures have had besides. 
Thirdly, for this cause I do not call them mere human writ- 
ings, (as you conceive I do,) but mixed, and qualified with 
the terms of ecclesiastical, sacred, and divine writings. (Num. 
77.*) I distinguish them likewise from those books that are 
merely apocryphal; (num. 60.’) and such as were disallowed 
and not permitted to be publicly used, or any part of them 
to be read in the Church. Moreover, I acknowledge them 
to be canonical, (if that term be largely, and not strictly 
understood,) in divers respects: (1.) In regard of the good 
and religious use that may be made of them for the more 
ample direction and instruction of the people in a pious and 
regular course of life, to which purpose we bind them up 
with our Bibles, and read many lessons out of them in the 
public Liturgy, (in which sense the Council of Carthage? took 
them, when it gave them that appellation:) (2.) Or, as they 
are to be preferred before all other ecclesiastical books, (in 
which sense §. Augustine* took them:) (3.) And, as they are 
opposed to supposititious, rejected, and apocryphal writings, 
properly so called, (in which sense both 8. Augustine, and 


w Hist., num. Ixxxi. p. 105. [See * [See Schol. Hist., ἢ, Ixxxii. vol. 
vol. iii. p. 135.] iil. p. 143. note f. ] 

* [vol. iii. p. 119, et seq. ] * [Ibid., n, lxxxi. p. 131. not. z, &e. 1 

¥ [pp. 69—71.} 


«“ 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 435 


the Council, and divers other of the Fathers, took them.) All 
these ways, I allow, they may be called canonical, as you may 
find in many places of my History, and especially in the end 
of the eighty-first®, and not far from the beginning of the 
eighty-second* paragraph. Only in this one regard I deny 
them to be strictly and properly so called, because they want 
the five characters of indubitate and canonical books of Scrip- 
ture, mentioned (as I said before) in my second‘ paragraph, 
which you are to take all along with you, or else you miss 
the sense of my whole book. And, if you miss that, it is no 
great marvel you should conceive and imagine that I have 
missed the sense of our Article. 

15. Yet you urge against me the difference, which you have 
apprehended herein between my sense and the sense of our 
first reformers, as you say (twice) “ you have heretofore done 
all along, in your letters addressed unto me for that purpose, 
and said, what you repeat now again, that you cannot consent 
to my way of stating the matter, and so not to very much of 
that which I drive at in my book.” 

16. Where you will permit me to put you in mind, and to 
tell you, that, after you had first invited me and set me upon 
the work, (which you did by two very earnest and most 
friendly letters,) and when I had, with all the pains and care 
that either my industry or my skill could use, endeavoured 
to content and give you satisfaction, by sending you the book 
in a fair and full order finished as it was, after this I never 
received more than one letter from you about it, (before now,) 
wherein you were so far from saying what you do in this last, 

that, besides your very kind acceptance of the book, expressed 
in many affectionate terms, you were pleased to return me 
more abundant thanks for it, both from yourself and others, 
than I could any way deserve: you told me, that ‘you had 
put it into the hands of many learned men, both Bishops and 
Priests, who were well able to judge of it, and that it was 
truly approved by all that read it.” Of my lord of Ely* you 
said, that “he had read it over twice, and very highly approved 
of it ;” (that was your expression again:) “ with whose judg- 
ment my lord of Rochester‘ was satisfied.” And for yourself 


» [p. 142 © [p. 146. ] 


p. 142.] 4 [p. #.] 
* [Matth. Wren, } : [Joh. Warner. | 
F £2 


436 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


you added, that “you had not only discerned the work to 
be most accurate, but that I had insisted also on the only 
right way and method of deciding the point,—that the pains 
I had taken would not be for your benefit alone, (so you were 
pleased then to say,) but, as you trusted, for the benefit of 
the Church of God,—that you had not hitherto met with any 
thing so fully written, im defence of our Church’s catalogue 
of canonical books,—and that upon these terms (with many 
more) you had professedly recommended it to all others who 
received it from you to read and peruse it. Only upon better 
leisure, and more mature consideration, you found that you 
had some exceptions to make:” whereof yet you named but 
one alone, concerning the book of Baruch, set forth (as you 
conceived) both by the Council of Laodicea, Athanasius, and 
S. Cyril, and by the English Bible in the time of King Ed- 
ward, among the number of canonical books of Scripture. 
Other mention than this you made not of our first reformers 
at all, nor said you more concerning the proceedings or judg- 
ment of our Church herein, than that “ our Bible so con- 
tinued till the second reprinting of it after Calvin had dealt 
with the Protector.’ But to this exception I returned you a 
large, and (as I thought) a satisfactory answer: for you were 
silent upon it, and said nothing to it, all the space of twenty- 
one months together, durmg which time you committed the 
book to the press. And now, after all this, when it was ready 
to come forth, I confess it did a little trouble me to receive 
an unexpected letter from you, wherein, though you freely 
acknowledge that I have “ satisfied you as to the overthrowing 
of the Tridentine canon, yet, for the Article of the Church 
of England, and the judgment itself to be made about some 
of the controverted books,” you say that you must “ now 
again alike freely profess, as you have heretofore done all 
along in your letters to me,” (I had but one letter from you, 
and what you professed in it may be seen before,) “that you 
cannot consent to my way of stating the matter, and so not 
to very much of that, which I drive at in my book.” ‘Truly, 
had you said as much before, I profess alike freely to you, 
that for your sake I would never have given my consent to 
have had the book published, at least, not till you had been 
better satisfied, for whose sake it was at first compiled. 








LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, 437 


16. [dis.] Yet since it is come thus far, I must endeavour 
now to satisfy you as far as I can. 

17. And, first, let not that trouble you, (which you say 
you alleged heretofore, but truly I never heard of it from you 
till now,) that “our sixth Article in King Edward’s time was 
wholly without this distinction between the canonical books 
of the Bible, and the others now set down as not such.” 
For, im King Edward’s days, (durmg all whose reign the 
new canon made at Trent was not yet confirmed and pub- 
lished,) there was no great need of any such distinguishing 
article ; nor was the Church of England, (which with all other 
Churches had from time to time well known and preserved 
that distinction by prefixing 8. Hierome’s Prologues before 
their Bibles,) so early troubled about it, or disquieted with 
any open opposition against it. But when, in Queen Mary’s 
days, the canons of the new council house came roaring over 
from Trent, and in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign 
made so great a noise in England that men began there to be 
afraid of them, lest they might do some hurt, it was time 
then for the reformers, and composers of our Articles, to take 
special notice of it, and carefully to keep up (against the new 
canon of Trent) the old distinction between the canonical 
books of Scripture, and those that were not truly such, ac- 
cording to 8. Hierome’s Prologues, together with the general 
received tradition of the Church, in all times before, about 
them. ὕ 

18. To which purpose there is, in effect, as much said 
(though the particular catalogue of each sort of these books 
be not specified) even in King Edward’s Article. For there 
is a plain distinction also made there, by your own confes- 
sion, first, between those things (or points of doctrine) that 
may be admitted as pious and profitable for good order and 
manners, and those that are to be required of any man as 
articles of faith, and necessary to salvation: then, secondly, 
between those books of whose authority there hath been 
doubt made from time to time, and those of whose authority 
there was never any doubt in the Church®: which distinction 
can refer to no other books, than such as are of either kind 


® [These words are not found in the Article of Edw. VI.—See Gunning’s 
Leiter, p. 413, note h.] 


438 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


named in S. Hierome’s Prologue set before the Bible, and 
afterwards particularly declared and specified in the two 
several catalogues which the reviewers of that Article added 
in the time of Queen Elizabeth. 

19. I say again, let not this trouble you. For there was 
no more done in this Article, than in some other besides; as 
in the twenty-fifth, not only the specifying of the two Sacra- 
ments that were ordained by Christ, but the excluding also 
of the other five by name from being any true Sacraments of 
the Gospel. In King Edward’s time we were content to 
use 8. Augustine’s general words", and say: “Dominus noster 
Jesus Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis, &c., . . . socie- 
tatem novi populi colligavit, sicuti est Bapt. et Cena Domini.” 
But, when the Council at Trent had determined that num- 
ber, (under the pain of anathema and damnation to the 
gainsayers,) that it was neither more nor less than seven, 
the Church of England in Queen Elizabeth’s time thought 
it requisite to speak more expressly, and to declare no less 
against this canon of new Sacraments, than it did against 
the other of new canonical Scriptures. More instances might 
be given, but there is no need of them. 

20. That the catalogue of canonical books named and 
numbered in the Article was intended a catalogue of such 
books, not simply, (if you take the word canonical, as you 
do, for “those books of Scripture, which contain all articles 
of Faith, or things necessary to salvation, and of which, or 
whose authority, was never any doubt in the Church,”) is not 
so well said: otherwise, if you take the word canonical in a 
large sense, as I often grant in my own book that it may be 
taken, for those books of Scripture which contain rules or 
examples of good life, and of whose authority there hath been 
ever a very considerable doubt in the Church, then indeed 
your saying is very true, and I have nothing to fault in it. 
For, as you observe very well, “ Our reformers found it a very 


Ὁ [S. Augustine’s words are: “ Pri- 
mo itaque tenere te volo, quod est hu- 
jus disputationis caput, Dominum nos- 
trum Jesum Christum, sicut Ipse in 
Evangelio loquitur, leni jugo Suo nos 
subdidisse, et sarcinz levi: unde Sa- 
cramentis numero paucissimis, obser- 
vatione facillimis, significatione pre- 
stantissimis, societatem novi populi col- 


ligavit, sicuti est Baptismus Trinitatis 
nomine consecratus, Communicatio 
Corporis et Sanguinis Ipsius, et si quid 
aliud in Scripturis canonicis commen- 
datur ;” &c.—Vid. 5. Aug. ad Inquisit. 
Januarii, lib. i. epist. liv. ὃ 1.—Op., 
tom. ii. 60]. 124.—Conf. lib. de Vera 
Religione, cap. xvii. § 33. tom. i. col. 
758. | 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 439 


happy thing, that they could say truly (as they might indeed 
most truly) that all Articles of Faith, and all things required 
as necessary to salvation, are contained not only in the cano- 
nical Holy Scriptures, but (which is much more for our com- 
fort and quiet) even in those canonical books, of whose 
authority was never any doubt in the Church. For those, of 
which there had been considerable doubt,” (you say, by con- 
siderable parts of the Church for some time: I say, by all 
parts of the Church in all times:) “could not be of equal or 
like authority, (as the Tridentine definition would have it,) 
for the determining of any point of the Faith, with those 
of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church. 
And of these latter the after subjomed catalogue did” not 
only “seem,” (which is too lessening and doubtful a word,) 
but was most evidently “a fair and true catalogue.” Thus 
far, (that is, if you please to let your words be thus quali- 
fied,) we agree. 

21. But in your next section, when you say, on the other 
side, “ No man can with any colour believe now, that no 
other books are at all canonical,” (taking canonical strictly 
for books that contain matters of faith necessary to salva- 
tion,) “or truly and certainly to us God’s Word, of whose 
authority there hath been doubt in the Church,” among 
which you number not only “Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, the additaments to Daniel, and the first of 
Maccabees,” (you omit the 2nd, and the rest of Esther,) but 
likewise {πὸ Apocalypse of S.John, his 2nd and 3rd Epistles, 
together with the Epistles of S. James and 8. Jude, the 
2nd of S. Peter, and the Epistle (of S. Paul) to the Hebrews, 
besides some parts of the Gospels :’—in this we agree not, 
and-I have given you my reasons for my necessary dissent 
from you before. 

22. I am likewise as far from agreeing to you, when you 
say: “It is impossible to imagine the composers of our 
Article ignorant of the doubt, which had been, of many of 
those books in the New Testament then and now commonly 
received, and that these books” (which you named out of the 
New Testament before) “were by them intended to be the 
books, of whose authority the Church had doubted.” For, if 
they had either known that doubt, or intended those books, 


440 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


they would surely have put them into a catalogue by them- 
selves, (as they did the other of the Old Testament,) and not 
have “counted them all to be canonical,” as expressly as 
they do, referring the term canonical here to what they had 
said of it before, that is, to “those books, both of the Old 
and New Testament,” (for certainly the Article did not intend 
to deceive us with a reserved or double sense,) “οἵ whose 
authority was never any doubt in the Church:” which is 
so far from being “ apertly false,” that it is most assuredly 
true: for, as I said before, three or four private men (or a 
greater company than these) that have now and then, out of 
their particular fancy and curiosity, scrupled those books of 
the New Testament, (as some have done other canonical 
books of the Old,) will not make up the body of the Church, 
which always received and embraced them, notwithstanding 
those scruples of a few self-conceited persons. 

23. And now I have nothing else to consider, in all your 
papers behind, but the arguments which you bring for the 
defence of the doubtful (and therefore, say I, uncanonical) 
books of the Old Testament, out of the Bible, the Service 
Book, and the Homilies. 

24. First, you direct me to King Edward’s and the Bishop’s 
Bible, where, ‘in the recension of all the books at the begin- 
ning,’ you say‘, (and I believe you upon your word, for I have 
not these Bibles here by me,) that “the books Apocryphal are 
noted to be two, (the third and fourth of Esdras,) as they 
were then and now are commonly reputed by the Church of 
Rome.” This,—as it may well be, if the notion of apocryphal 
writings be taken more properly for those books, that were 
of less credit in the Church, than either Wisdom, or Eccle- 
siasticus, or the rest of that class, that were in those days 
termed ecclesiastical Scriptures: yet will not the calling of 
these two ‘apocryphal books’ be a sufficient proof, that there- 
fore all the other, sorted into the second catalogue of our 
Article in Q. Elizabeth’s time, were to King Edward’s Re- 
formers, or to the Church of Rome then, equally canonical 
with those undoubted books, which are set forth there in the 
first catalogue. And this is all that I drive at throughout 
the whole discourse of my book; wherein I wonder the more, 


* [See Gunning’s Letter, p. 415. ] 











LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, 441 


why you should say that you cannot agree with me. For, if 
the several editions of the Bible, or the tables of recension 
set before them, be so prevalent an argument with you, I can 
tell you of a Bible}, (which I have seen with mine own eyes,) 
printed here in France ten years before King Edward’s was 
printed in England, wherein not only the third and fourth 
of Esdras, but all the rest that we now print after them, 
as appendants to the Old Testament, are, in the recension 
of all the books at the beginning, set down with the title 
of Apocrypha over them all, and in that notion distinguished 
from the canonical books by name and special advertisement. 
Now add hereunto, that our present Article of the Church of 
England numbereth Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, &c., in the same 
class, and in the same notion, with the third and fourth of 
Esdras, (which you confess both King Edward’s Reformers, 
and the Church of Rome, then and now acknowledge to be 
apocryphal,) and your own argument will of force return 
strongly against you. 

25. I have answered your objection concerning Baruch, 
the prophet, in my paper sent you heretofore. It may 
trouble you the less, because he is so styled even in that 
class of our Article, which distinguisheth him from the 
undoubted and canonical books of Scripture. Nor will 8. 
Peter’s place help you: (you cite 2 Pet. i. 19.) who, when 
he spake of a sure prophecy*, never intended, we may be 
sure, any uncertain or doubtful book of the Bible. I will 
say more: when ὃ. Jude cited Enoch’s prophecy by name, 
(Jud. v. 14, 15,) there is no question to be made, but it was 


_a true and sure prophecy, and that it had a certain event: 


yet will not this serve their turn, who shall say, that there- 


fore the prophet Enoch was numbered before among the 


canonical books of Scripture: so far is Baruch off from being 
“surely canonical,” as you would have him to be. 

26. In the first Common Prayer-book of King Edward 
VL, you say', that, among other sentences of Holy Scrip- 


7 [See Schol. Hist., num. clxxvii. it had a certain event,” were originally 
vol. iii. p. 262; and, besidesthe Bibles here inserted, but they have been sub- 
there noticed, see Bibl. Sacr. juxta sequently erased by a pen, as having 
Vulg., &c., ex officina Sim. Colinzi, been copied by mistake apparently from 
Par. 1541.— But Cosin evidently refers the place below. ] 
to some yet earlier edition. ] ' [See Gunning’s Letter, p. 416. ] 

« [In the MS. the words, “and that 


442 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


ture read at the Communion or Offertory, there be two 
taken out of Tobit. You may say as much of ours, that is 
now in use, (for there they be both,) but you will gain 
nothing to your purpose, either from the one book, or the 
other. For under the name of Holy Scriptures is a great 
deal more comprehended, than the canonical books of Serip- 
ture, to which they are otherwhiles restrained, when we 
speak [ex]pressly and distinctly, as our Church doth in her 
Article. And, though she doth not always so in her Com- 
mon Prayer-book, and Homilies, yet therein she doth no 
more, than many of the Fathers and ancient Churches have 
done before her, as I have often declared in several passages 
of my historical discourse about them. 

27. In the Common Prayer-books ever since, you observe, 
that “ Lessons are taken out of those controverted books of 
Scripture.” And so are they likewise in the first book of 
K. Edward™, where you might have observed the same order 
appointed for such lessons from the 5th day of October to 
the 28th day of November, among which there is “a feast of 
high note, when all the people are supposed to be present™.” 
And at this feast the lessons, “which otherwise came then 
in order to be read, are set aside for the time,” as they were 
afterwards at some other ‘higher feasts of the year. But 
this will not make those lessons to be canonical Scriptures 
(properly so called) either now or then. It is enough, that 
they tend both to instruct the people with good rules and 
holy examples of life, and to illustrate the sacred mysteries 
of our Religion. And we are ever to remember that saying, 
whereof we are put in mind and forewarned in the Preface 
to all these Books of Common Prayer, that, “as there be 
left out many things in them, whereof some be untrue, some 
uncertain, &c., so there is nothing ordained to be read, but 
the very pure Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, or that 
which is evidently grounded upon the same :” which will also 
serve for an answer to what you observe of “the Collects 
upon Good-Friday, the First Day of Lent, and the Eleventh 
Sunday after Trinity :” though all the words, which I can find 
parallel to what are used there, be in Wisdom xi. 24, where 
we read only, “and abhorrest nothing that Thou hast made.” 


™ (A.D. 1549.] » [See Gunning’s Letter, p, 416. ] 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 443 


28. But I pray you bring the opinion that you have of 
Baruch to these Common Prayer-books, and see how well 
it agrees with them, (either the first, or the last,) before we 
leave them. You were, and are still, of the mind, (for aught 
I perceive,) that Baruch is not only a true part of canonical 
Scripture, but counted to be one book with the Prophecy 
and Lamentations of Jeremiah: for which purpose you 
avouched some of the ancient Fathers, and would have me 
believe, that the Reformers in K. Edward’s days, at least 
they that then composed the first Liturgy, were of no other 
different opinion from you: as indeed I am, and must be 
still. For besides the answers that I have given to your 
objections out of those Fathers, I ask now, why those first 
Reformers (if they had been of your mind) did not appoint 
in their calendar Baruch to be read° immediately after the 
Lamentations, as they did the Lamentations next after the 
Prophecy of Jeremiah, but kept both the one and the other 
in their proper and distinct order? And this I desire you 
to note only the rather, because you think that this first 
Common Prayer-book and the Bible in K. Edward’s time 
are both for you. 

29. As for the Homilies, (whereinto you have made so 
diligent a search for this purpose,) I can see no more evi- 
dence in them, than what I have found, and taken notice of 
already, in my book, out of the like popular sayings used by 
the ancient Fathers, concerning many other writings of less 
credit in the Church than these controverted books of the 
Scripture ever were. And the answers, that I have made in 
sundry places to the one, may well serve and suffice for the 
other. For, if those very Fathers, who otherwhiles (when 
they speak precisely and strictly of Divine and undoubted 
Scripture) did not acknowledge, but reject, those questioned 
and doubtful books out of the canon and supreme authority 
of Scripture universally received in the Church, and yet not- 
withstanding did otherwhiles (when they spake in a popular 
and large sense) call the same books “ Holy and Divine Scrip- 
tures, the Sacred Word of God, and writings of prophetical 
and wise men inspired by the Holy Ghost,” (some of which 


° {In Edward’s Prayer-Books Baruch is appointed to be read at the end of the 
Apocryphal books, in November. } 


444. LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


appellations they give to other writings of lower note than 
these,)—if, I say, those Fathers may have such an interpre- 
tation put upon either of their sayings, as that they shall 
not be made to contradict one another, nor to be uncapable 
of a distinct sense,—why may not our thirty-fifth Article have 
the like interpretation given to it, and be kept from contra- 
dicting the sixth? The Homilies are popular Sermons, and 
though it be very true, that they contain and set forth in 
general “a godly and wholesome doctrine, necessary both 
for those times,” wherein they were made, and for these 
times of ours besides, yet will not that necessity go so far, 
as to make every particular word, and every popular or free 
expression in those Homilies, to be the strict and determi- 
nate doctrine of the Church, whereunto all men are tied to 
subscribe, and hold them every one, no less than the Articles 
themselves: for then you and I, and all others of our pro- 
fession, shall be bound to believe and teach, as the deter- 
minate doctrine of our Church, that Nebuchadnezzar was 
“a beast, and went upon four legsP,”’ that “ S. Ambrose ex- 
communicated Theodosius the Emperor?,” and that, being so 
excommunicate or given over to the Devil, he was “to be 
shunned and avoided by all good men:” which words I pre- 
sume you would rather excuse, as popular declamations, and 
excesses of speech, than admit them for the positive and 
necessary doctrines of the Church of England. And yet, 
notwithstanding these words, we are all bound to subscribe 
to the general aim and doctrine of those Homilies, wherein 
they are found, that it was and is behoveful for the times. 
30. But, that it was behoveful and necessary either for 
those times or these, to believe that Tobit and Baruch, or 
any other of the controverted books, (which be there called 
Holy Scriptures,) are in every respect no less the Word of 
God, than Moses and the prophets are, is more than either 
the Homilies, or the composers of our thirty-fifth Article, 
(who declared the contrary before in the sixth,) can be con- 
ceived to intend. For this hath neither evidence of truth, 
nor proof sufficient to give it warrant. And therefore their 
common and popular expressions of those books may with 


P [Homily on the Passion, par. ii., 4. [Homily on the right use of the 
ed. Lond. 1846, p. 452. ] Church, par. ii., pp. 176, 177.] 





LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 445 


far more conveniency be qualified, and ask that indulgence 
which an ordinary courtesy will easily grant them, than chal- 
lenge that assent which our reason cannot yield them. 

31. That which they say “in the second part of the Ser- 
mon of Almsdeeds', where they cite Tobit, and the Son of 
Sirach,” is by way of accumulation and enlargement to what 
they had cited before of Christ’s own words out of S. Luke; 
to which purpose they afterwards explain themselves, when 
in the next page to yours’ they say: “The meaning then of 
these sayings in the Scriptures, and other holy writings, 
Almsdeeds,” &c. 

82. In the second’ part of the Sermon of Obedience, these ! [“first.”j 
words which you cite, as referring to Wisdom vi., “ Learn 
here by the infallible and undeceivable Word of God, that 
kings,” &c., may as fitly refer to Proverbs vii., which they 
cited immediately before, and to Deut. xxxii., and Rom. xiii., 
which they cite immediately after. Take them cumulative, 
as in the third part of the Sermon against the Peril of 
Idolatry the like saying is taken, where four places of Scrip- 
ture (and one of them is Baruch) are noted in the margin 
to make it good: or take them separatim, in regard of the 
matter and subject whereof they treat, which is the same 

| with that in the Proverbs, and stands verified by other 
| canonical Scriptures; and then no doubt we may be bold 
| to affirm of Wisdom vi., that which with much confidence 
| preachers will aver of many their own sayings in their ser- 
| mons, “ Let us Jearn here by the infallible and undeceivable 
| Word of God, that kings,’ &e. For upon the infallible 
- Word of God those words are certainly grounded. 

| 33. In the first part of the Sermon of Swearing, Almighty 
| God saith no more by the Wise man there, than he may and 
| useth often to speak by other wise and holy preachers in His 
Church. 

34. To your citing of the Prophet Baruch I have answered 
enough before. 

35. All the rest of their sayings, which you have observed, 
are either (as I said) accumulations to other places of the 
canonical books, or ambiguously and largely termed the 
Scriptures and the eternal Word of God. 

r [See Gunning’s Letter, p. 416. ] * [p. 416. ] 





446 LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


36. And thus, Sir, you see it is very possible (and, for the 
many forcible reasons given in my book, very requisite) to 
reconcile our two Articles together, which is very easy to be 
done by interpreting the thirty-fifth Article in this more 
mitigated sense. 

37. But, whether this sense, or the other, be more agree- 
able to the sense of antiquity and universal tradition, (not- 
withstanding all that I have said of it in every age,) you 
think is still to be enquired. By which inquisition, if any 
thing shall be found wherein I have departed from the 
ancient Fathers, and the common voice of the Church, (as 
Iam yet confident that I have not,) I will promise you to 
let the world hear me say: Quod feci, infectum esto; et in- 
dictum, quod dizi. 

In the mean while, how highly soever you shall with words 
of truth seek to extol the credit of Baruch, or Wisdom, or 
any other of those Ecclesiastical books, you will not herein 
offend me at all. I seek not to derogate from any thing 
which such holy writings can justly challenge; but my de- 
sire is, to uphold the due estimation and the peculiar glory 
of the undoubted and canonical Scriptures by universal tra- 
dition delivered to the Church, from which they do surely 
derogate more than they ought, that shall impart the same 
glory to any other sacred writings whatsoever: which is the 
sum of my whole book, and the mind of, Sir, 


Your most affectionate Friend 


and Servant, 


From Paris, {Ὁ 
April 4, 1657. 


[Copied from the original in Dr. Cosin’s own hand. | 
Some time in my hands, till I parted with it to my 
honourable friend [White'] Lord Bp. of Peterborough". 


‘ [White Kennet.] “ [This notestands in the MS. bracketed as above.—Ep. ] 











LETTERS ON THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 447 


FOR MR. GUNNING, 
May 6, 1657. 


Sir, 

I wave lately received a letter from London, (and I think 
it came from one that has since sat at the same table 
whereof we spake before,) that gives me thanks for the book, 
and calls it an excellent vindication of our Article, but tells 
me withal, that there be many persons not unlearned who 
think the whole question to be no fit matter for any great 
contest : which is no more than I looked for from the very 
first time that you set me about it. And yet, if they had 
waded as far as you and I have done in it, I believe they 
would be of another mind: for, by your leave, it is /d/ustris 
Questio, and no man ought to be so indifferent in it, as to 
suffer himself and all the reformed and ancient Churches to 
be accursed, as they are by the Roman party, without being 
less sensible of it than we have been. But hereby you see 
the guise and censure of some men in the world, who are 
more forward to vent than to study what they say: which 
seems to tend to nothing else but this, that all the care and 
pains, which you and I have taken about this matter, might 
well have been spared. Howsoever, if you repent not of it, 
no more do I: qui nolui te hec igno[rajre, and am, Sir, 

Your most affectionate Friend and Humble Servant, 
J.C. 


Of late I have been so very ill at ease, 
that for 12 days together I had no use of 
my eyes’, and am not yet well recovered. 


v [See the extract from Cosin’s let- his writing badly, on the ground that 
ter to Sancroft, p. 242, note b.—See ἃ cataract was forming in his reading 
also a previous letter to Sancroft, dated eye, he having “ never had but one eye 
from Paris, June 26, 1659, (Harl. MS. _ for that purpose.” ] 

3783, 103;) in which Cosin excuses 





448 LETTER ON PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 


TO MR. GUNNING. 


May 26, 1627, [1657.] 
518, 

I πᾶνε yours of May 11th, together with what you sent 
inclosed; for which I return (as 1 am most obliged to do) 
all due and hearty acknowledgment, both to yourself, and to 
them that are so constantly mindful of me. 

At other men’s words (whereof you take notice) I shall 
not be troubled, and truly I gave little credit to them: for 
T know how to discern a molehill from a mountain. 

But for the letter, which you say was shewed to you, (and 
I pray tell me from whom, though it be but a line or two, 
for then I shall be able to judge of it, whether it were a true 
copy or a false,) I am very loath, that there should be the 
least difference of judgment in that matter between us. Nor, 
by the words that you express of it, do I perceive that you 
dissent from me at all. For you shall not find, (if the copy 
of the letter be true and entire,) that I ever said * Presbyters 
had any power of rightful Ordination in the judgment of 
antiquity : nay, you shall find the contrary, and that I greatly 
blame them, saying, they will never be able to answer it, 
for presuming to take a power upon them, which was never 
given or committed to them; and that nothing but a case of 
necessity, (reserving their wonted desire of Bishops, where 
they are by no means to be had or permitted,) can excuse 
them. I know it is the interest of the Pope and the Jesuits, 
with other of the like faction, to cry down the jus divinum 
of Episcopacy ; and, as I never was, so by the grace of God 
Τ shall never be, of that faction. But the question only is, 
whether there be such an absolute necessity and precept in 
that Jus Divinum in all places, and at all times, as, where it 
cannot be put in practice, there, in such a case of necessity, 
the ordination of a Presbyter by a college of Presbyters, 


« [See Letter to Cordel, p. 401, et seq. ] 








LETTER ON PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 449 


(though altogether against the ancient and apostolical canons, 
for which they are to answer,) shall be utterly void and in- 
valid to all effects whatsoever, (as you know who hold our 
administration to be, when a lawful Presbyter cannot be 
had or found to perform it,)—whether, in such a case, if you 
were a Bishop, you would ordain the Presbyter again’, or no; 
which was never yet done in the Church of England, but in 
Mr. Dury’s case” alone, and that upon his own earnest [de- 
sire,| and pretence of conscience, though, all the world saw, 
he looked another way :—whether the Church of England 
hath ever determined the French and German ordinations 
by Presbyters or superintendents to be null and vain? and 
hath not rather admitted them, and employed them at several 
times in public administrations of the Sacraments, and other 
divine offices among us?—yea, whether there was not a law 
made (13 Eliz. 8) to allow such an ordination, then questioned 
by some persons, whereof I could tell you a long story out of 
our records in the church of Durham, which I have hereto- 
fore diligently perused? I could tell you another of Bishop 
Overall’s> judgment herein, who was as great a patron of 
antiquity and the Church of England, as any Bishop or 
Priest that ever lived in it; and was wont to say, ‘Though 
we are not to lessen the jus divinum of Episcopacy, where it 
is established, and may be had, yet we must take heed that 
we do not, for want of Episcopacy, where it cannot be had, 
cry down and destroy all the Reformed Churches abroad, 
both in Germany, France, and other places, and say they 
have neither ministers nor sacraments, but all is void and 








y [This point was decided in 1661. 
In Ireland Abp. Bramhall, and the 
Bishops, ordained such persons under 
an hypothetical form. (Conf. Kennett, 
Chron., ed. Lond. 1728, tom. i. pp. 
440, 441.) The Bishops for Scotland 
were first ordained Deacons and Priests 
absolutely ; and by the 4et of Uniformity 
(13 and 14 Car. II., cap. iv. § 14) it 
was enacted, “that no person shall be 
capable of any benefice, or presume to 
consecrate and administer the holy Sa- 
erament of the Lord’s Supper, before 
- +... he be ordained a Priest by 
Episcopal ordination, on pain of for- 
feiting for every offence one hundred 
pounds.”’ } 

2 [John Dury, or Durie, a divine of 


Scotland, who laboured to unite the 
Lutherans with the Calvinists.—See 
Watt’s Bibl. Brit., sub nom. | 

a (cap. xiii—Stat. at Large—Bp. 
Cosin refers to the case of Whitting- 
ham, Dean of Durham.—See Birch’s 
Life of Tillotson, pp. 186, 187, where 
is given the substance of a letter of Co- 
sin’s on the same subject as the letter 
here printed ; and where also his state- 
ments respecting this Act are corrected. 
—See Strype’s Annals, book ii. ch. 11. 
vol. ii, (part 2.) pp. 519, et seq. ] 

> [See the extract from the letter in 
Birch, p. 185, referred to in the last 
note, and in which Bp. Overall’s words 
are given. The party, whose ordination 
was in question, was Dr. Delaune. ] 


COSIN, Ἑ [ε 5 


4.50 LETTER ON PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 


null that they do.’ This is all the letter drives at, and at 
nothing else: which truly I cannot apprehend, how it either 
hurts the jus divinwm of Episcopacy, or excuseth their volun- 
tary and transcendent impiety, that have endeavoured to de- 
stroy it in the Church of England, contrary to the laws of 
God, and His universal Church, the Mother of us all. I shall 
trouble you no more at this present: but I shall be willing 
and desirous to receive a line or two from you, both to know 
who shewed you the pretended letter, and to have your sense 
of what is here written by, 
Sir, 
Your most assured friend, and 
humble servant, 
A OF 


Mr. Richard Reeves at this time missed of his rate, which 
hath been higher this last fortnight than ordinary: and if 
he had set his bill at usance, and not at three days’ sight, 
his sum would have [been] 32 French livres more than it 
was. 


For my honoured friend, Mr. P. Gunning. 











LETTER TO DR. COLLINS CONCERNING THE 
SABBATH ¢. 


[ This letter has been printed in the Bibliotheca Literaria, num. V. paper iv., 
ed. Lond. 1722, p. 33, et seq. | 


REVEREND Sir, 


I HAVE now got a little leisure (and but now) for this re- 
script De Sabbato, or De Die Dominico. Such as it is, I 
submit it to you. 

1. For the perpetual Morality of the Sabbath, there is no 
question but the old heretics were out, and that the new 
English puritans are so too. The keeping of that particular 
day was not moral, nor by precept binding any other men 
but the Jews, nor them further than Christ’s time. 

2. But then, secondly, whether one day of seven at the 
least do not still remain immutably to be kept (I do not say 
by all men, and by virtue of the law of nature, but) by us, 
that have knowledge of God’s will and example before, and 
by virtue of the rules of reason and religion,—that we Chris- 
tians ought not to think a less time will be exacted of us, 
than was of the Jews ?—this is the question. 

And, if S. Chrysostom and the other worthies (whom you 


~ name) were for the affirmative part, that one day of seven is 


due at least, (as of that mind they were,) I believe they 
grounded themselves upon these rules of religion and reason, 
and not that they held the privy, simple, moral law of nature 
did dictate to all men any such precise and set time to be 
kept. Truly I am tender of their credit, more than of any 
other men’s, and for their sakes (besides the good piety and 
religion that is in it) we think that assertion would be still 


¢ [A full account of the opinions White’s ‘Treatise on the Sabbath-Day,’ 
and controversies of the time, on this ed. 2, Lond. 1635.] 
subject, will be found in Bp. Francis 


6g2 


452 LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH. 


held up to be probable, at least not so exploded, and con- 
temned so confidently, as by some men it is. For my part, 
T will not stand in it; but this I will surely stand in,—and 
I have good authors to hold by,—Unus e septem, si non sit 
moralis, tamen maxime Natura, Rationi, et Religioni consen- 
taneus est. 1 dare go no further, especially since you are 
scarce willing I should go so far. You see what power and 
authority you have over me. 

3. But now, in the third place, for our Dominicus Dies, 
as it is established and settled by a new law: I will crave 
leave to be of the same mind I was, that it is immutable, till 
they that are of another mind, (among whom I do not yet 
account you to be one,) and say it may be transferred to any 
other day of the week, shall answer the authorities that are 
found, both in the Scriptures and in the Fathers, better than 
they do. For, first, I trow it will be granted, that, if this 
day be of divine institution, no human authority hath power 
to alter it. δὲ Divino Jure constitutus sit, nulla potest hu- 
mand auctoritate abrogari vel mutari. The schoolmen con- 
fess as much: and Canus‘, in the place by you designed, as 
much as they, Nove Legis pracepta Ecclesia solvere non po- 
test ; and in another place more plainly, (lib. iii. c. 5°:) Hw 
traditionum quippe vinculo, quas a Christo acceptas Apostoli 
fidelibus servandas reliquere, Ecclesia fideles eximere non po- 
test, nec illas contraria aliqudé consuetudine abolere. Here be 
two things to prove: I. Divine Institution: II. Apostoliecal 
Tradition. 

1. And, that it is of divine institution, (as that I must 
think so, at least till I have better learned,) I have these 
places both from Scripture and Fathers to prove it, many 
whereof are not yet touched by them who have declared their 
minds another way for the mutability of the Lord’s Day. 

[$ 1.] I begin with the Scriptures, and first with that of 
S. Paul: “The sabbath was a figure and shadow of somewhat 
to come,” (Col. ii. 17 ;) which is applied by 8. Austin to Dies 


4 [De Loe. Theol., lib. ii. cap. xviii. tradita, ut propria sunt Legis Nove 
§ Ad quartum.—Op., ed. 8°. Col. Agr. przcepta, ita ea Ecclesia nec solvere 
1605, p. 129.—The precise words of nec remittere ulli potest, sicut ne le- 
Canus are: “Inter hee autem Scrip- gem Nature quidem,”’ | 
turze mandata non leve discrimen est ; e [Ibid., p. 162. ] 
quod priora illa a Domino Apostolis 











LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH, 453 


Dominicus, ut quod Judai in figurd, nos in veritate celebremus, 
(Serm. 251, de Temp. f;) and by Leo the Great &, Dies sabbati, 
dum mutatur in Dominicum, impletur. The fulfillmg of the 
typical sabbath is the very changing of it (as it was changed) 
into the Lord’s Day. 

[δ] 2. Then, that of the Psalmist is a pregnant testimony, 
(Ps. exvill. 22, 23, 24:) Lapidem quem reprobaverunt, &c. A 
Domino factum est istud, &c., and, Hee est Dies quam fecit 
Dominus, ἧτο. : which place is a prophecy of the Lord’s Day, and 
by the general consent of the Fathers so understood. ‘There 
is not one of the Fathers,”’ (saith he, whose sayings and read- 
ings too we may trust for this,—it is my lord of Winton*,) “that 
interprets these words otherwise.” And yet nos habemus fir- 
miorem sermonem, S. Peter’s own words, and S. Peter’s own 
testimony, (Acts iv. 11 :) Hie est Lapis qui, a vobis edifican- 
tibus reprobatus, (that was upon Good Friday,) factus est in 
Caput anguli, (upon the day of Christ’s Resurrection.) Neither 
will this be restrained to Haster-Day only, the anniversary, 
but hath always been extended to the weekly revolution, the 
observation and making of every ies Dominicus to be kept 
holy. For, (1.) The Church in her public liturgies made 
always this psalm a proper psalm for every Sunday, never to 
be omitted in Die Dominico. Ecclesia semper cantat in Ie 
Dominico, et merito, (saith Jacobus de Graffiis, in his Aur. 
Decis. [par.i.] 1. 1. ο. 34, n.4':) “Hee est Dies, quam fecit Do- 
minus. So that it was for these words’ sake, that the whole 
psalm was sung, and for the day’s sake, that these words 
were sung every Sunday: a plain case, how the Church un- 
derstood and applied these words. (2.) Then they that go 
about to prove and establish the great Feast of Haster,—they 
do it upon this ground, (among others,) because every Lord’s 
Day hath testimony in Scripture, (in /Ais Scripture ;) asking 
the question, which they suppose nobody will deny, what a 
thing it were, that all the Sundays in the year should by 





f [sive Serm. eclxxx., de Dominica, 
&c., ὃ 2,—Op., tom. v. Append., col. 
467.] 

8 [Passages expressing this view 
are found in S. Leo, Serm. Ixiii. ¢. 5, 
col. 245; Serm. Ixvi. c. 2, col. 256; 
Serm. ]xix. c. 2, col. 268.—S. Leon. op., 
ed. Venct. 1753. ] 


" [Vid. Bp. Andrewes, Sermonon Ps. 
exvili. 22, preached before his Majesty 
at Whitehall, on Easter Day, ed. Lond. 
1611, p. 2.—Andrewes’ words are, 
“There is not one of the Fathers, that 


I have read, but interpret it of Easter 
Day.” } 


} [ Ed. Taurini, 1597, p. 192, B.] 


454 LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH. 
virtue of this Scripture be kept, (as by virtue of it they 
are,) and not Haster-Day as well, which is the archetype of 
them all. 

§ 3. Besides, somewhat it is that we read in the Prophet 
Hsay, (lvii. 13 :) Sabbatum Meum delicatum et gloriosum, &c. ; 
which the Council, which is called Concilium Forojuliense, 
under Adrian the first, applieth) to the Lord’s Day. Dixit 
Sabbatum Meum, non vestrum. Si de illo Sabbato diceret, 
quod Judai celebrant, quod est ultimum in hebdomadd,.... . 
diceret tantum Sabbatum, et nequaquam adderet delicatum et 
Meum: sed, quia differentiam voluit facere inter illud, et is- 
tud quod est Dominica Dies, ideo addidit Meum, ... . atque ideo 
cum omni reverentia est a nobis honorandum et colendum. So 
did the Church understand that place of Esay about 840 
years since. The Council was held in Charlemagne’s time. 

ᾧ 4. By the Canon Law, (tit. ix. de Feriis, c. Licet *,) it would 
seem, men were of the same mind then, that this Day was 
founded in Scripture. Ht Veteris et Novi Testamenti pagina 
septimum diem ad requiem deputavit. (Ubi Glossa:) Ponit Di- 
vinum preceptum, et septimam diem pro prima. 

§ 5. But I trow the Fathers make it clear. 

Ignatius, who lived with the Apostles, and knew well what 
their mind was, in his Ep. ad Magnes.': Dominicum Diem 
omnis Christi amans festum celebret, Diem Resurrectionis rega- 
lem, quem expectans propheta dicebat, In finem, pro octavd. 

Justin Martyr, im his second apology, p. 10, pro Chris- 
tianis™: De qui Solis dicitur, omnium qui in oppidis vel ruri 
degunt in unum Conventus fit, ἕο. And, a little after", (which 


ἡ [Vid. cap. xlii., ap. Labbe, tom. 
vil. col. 1008. | 

k [Vid. Decretal., lib. ii. tit. ix. cap. 
iii., ed. Lut. Par. 1561, col. 648.—Li- 
cet tam veteris quam novi testamenti 
pagina septimum diem ad humanam 
quietem specialiter deputaverit, &c.— 
Gloss.: Et primo ponit Divinum pre- 
ceptum.... Vetus testamentum ad 
literam precipiebat Sabbatum custo- 
diri: novum vero spiritualiter illud ser- 
vat primam diem pro septima celebran- 
do, &c. ] 

ΕΓΒ. Ignat. epist. ad Magnesianos, 
§ 9; ap. Patr. Apostol., ed. Cotelerii, 
Amstel. 1724, tom. ii. p. 57.—Ka! pera 
τὸ σαββατίσαι, ἑορταζέτω πᾶς φιλόχρισ- 


TOS τὴν κυριακὴν, τὴν ἀναστάσιμον, τὴν 
βασιλίδα, τὴν ὕπατον πασῶν τῶν ἦμε- 
ρῶν" ἣν περιμένων ὃ προφήτης ἔλεγεν" 
εἰς τὸ τέλος, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀγδόης" ἐν ἣ καὶ 
c 

ἡ ζωὴ, K.T.A. | 

m ΓΚ, Justini Mart. Apol. i. § 67.— 
Op., ed. Par. 1742, p. 83.—xal τῇ τοῦ 
ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων κατὰ πό- 
λεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συν- 
έλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονέυ- 
ματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, κ-.τ. λ.] 

n {Ibid., p. 81.--τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου 
ἡμέραν κοινῇ πάντες τὴν συνέλευσιν 
ποιούμεθα' ἐπειδὴ πρώτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα, 
ἐν ἣ 6 Θεὸς, τὸ σκότος καὶ τὴν ὕλην 
τρέψας, κόσμον ἐποίησε, καὶ Ἰησοῦς 
Χριστὸ" 6 ἡμέτερος Σωτὴρ τῇ αὐτῇ 














LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH, 455 


is the place I pitch on:) Solis autem Die communiter omnes 
conventum agimus, quando quidem hic est Dies quo Jesus Christus, 
Servator noster, a mortuis resurrexit. Postridie autem Diei Sa- 
turni, qui scilicet Dies Solis est, Apostolos et Discipulos suos, 
quibus tum se conspicuum prebuit, hac docuit, κα. Where, I 
trow, hec docuit is as much as Christ’s precept. 

S. Athanasius, in his book De Sabbato et Circumcis.°: 
ὥπερ ἐνετείλατο φυλάττειν, ἕο. “As it was commanded, 
that the Sabbath day should be observed,” οὕτως τὴν κυρια- 
κὴν τιμῶμεν, &e. “so we celebrate the Lord’s Day.” This 
as and so will extend the /atter to a precept, as well as the 
former. So I conceive his meaning to be the rather, for 
that, in his Hom. de Semente?, he says again: Dominus 
Christus transtulit Sabbatum in Diem Dominicum. 

Eusebius, in his third book of the Life of Constant., ο. 174. 
“We have received this Feast of our Saviour ;” and again, 
“which our Saviour delivered unto us.” And therefore it 
is, that S. Gregory Nazianzen calls it “God’s own day,” 
Hom. 1. in Pasch.'; where what was said of [the] anniversary 
was understood by the Church of the weekly revolution also of 
that day, as I have noted before. 

S. Augustin, Serm. 136°: ‘ Hee est Dies, quam fecit Domi- 
nus.’. .. Hec dies, que appellatur octava, unde et in quibusdam 
Psalmorum titulis superscribitur, ‘Pro Ocrava. And again, 
Serm. 141‘, which is not doubted to be 8. Austin’s own: Hu- 
jus rei signum erat circumcisio octavo die (imperata, in qua) sig- 
nificabatur expoliatio carnalis vite octavo die per Christi Resur- 
rectionem. Et Serm. 15", de verbis Christi.—Quare ergo octavo 


ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνέστη. TH γὰρ πρὸ 
τῆς κρονικῆς ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν" καὶ τῇ 
μετὰ τὴν κρονικὴν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡλίου 
ἡμέρα, φανεὶς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ 
μαθηταῖς, ἐδίδαξε ταῦτα, ἅπερ εἰς ἐπί- 
σκεψιν καὶ ὑμῖν ἀνεδώκαμεν.}) 

ο {§ 4.—S. Athan. op., ed. Ben. 
Par. 1698, tom. 1. p. δ7.---͵σπερ οὖν 
ἐνετείλατο φυλάττειν πρότερον τοῦ σαβ- 
βάτου τὴν ἡμέραν, μνήμην οὖσαν τοῦ 
τέλους τῶν προτέρων, οὕτως τὴν κυρι- 
ακὴν τιμῶμεν, μνήμην οὖσαν ἀρχῆς δευ- 
τέρας GVAKTITEWS. | 

ν» [§ 1; ibid. p. 60.---πμετέθηκε δὲ ὁ 
Κύριος τὸς τοῦ σαββάτου ἡμέραν εἰς κυ- 
ριακήν. 

4 (cap. xvill. De consensu in cele- 
bratione festi Paschalis, &c.; ad calc. 


Hist. Eccl., ed. Cantab. 17 20, pp. 987, 
588. τ- εἰλήφαμεν γὰρ παρὰ τοῦ Σωτῆ- 
ρος ὁδὸν ἑτέραν Bsa ye μίαν γὰρ ἑορτὴν 
τὴν τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐλευθερίας ἡμέραν, 
τουτέστι τὴν τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου πάθους, 6 
ἡμέτερος παρέδωκε Σωτήρ, κ. τ. A. | 

τ [S. Greg. Theol., Orat. i. (al. xli.) 
§i—Op., ed, Par. 1718, tom. i. p. 4.— 
ὡς τάχα γε κρείττων αὕτη καὶ τιμιωτέρα 
Θεῷ τῆς ἑτέρων ταχυτῆτο».---} 

s [3]. clix., De Pasch. iiOp., tom. 
v. Append. col. 282. ] 

t [4]. eexxxi, De diebus Paschali- 
bus ii. ; tom. v. col. 978. } 

u fal. clxix. De verbis Apostoli, 
Philip. iii., ‘Nos enim sumus circum- 
cisio,’ &c.; tom. v. col. 809. ] 


1 [“ dedi- 
catum.”’ | 


456 LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH. 


die? Quia ... resuscitatio Domini promisit nobis eternum diem, 
et consecravit nobis Dominicum diem. Which is the same that 
he wrote in his 119 Ep. ad Jan.”: (Dies in hebdomadarum re- 
cursibus octavus) resurrectione Domini declaratus est, et ex eo 
cepit habere festivitatem suam. He had said before, this day 
had been prefigured by circumcision; (which he repeats, lb. 
ii. contra Pelag. de peccato orig.” ;) and now he says, it was 
in truth declared to be this Dies Dominicus*. Circumcision 
and the Sabbath were both of one nature, both figures; and, 
as S. Austin’ says the one, so Leo? says the other, and 5. Atha- 
nasius®* that both were fulfilled by the Lord’s Day. 

Isidore is the next, (if I do not weary you,) hb. 1. de Div. 
Off. c. 24°: where, after he hath repeated many of S. Austin’s 
words, he addeth: Apparet hunc diem etiam in Scripturis Sanc- 
tis esse solennem. 

And the same words are repeated by Rab. Maur., 1. 11. de 
Inst. Cler. c. 42°, if his authority be aught. 

But, if his be not, Rupertus’ writings have been with 
most men of great account and authority. I will end this 
first part, for Divine imstitution, with him. He, in his ]. vii. 
de Div. Off. c. 194, saith plainly, that our Saviour Christ Him- 
self dedicated and sanctified the Lord’s Day, as the Church 
now observes, as God dedicated and sanctified the Sabbath, 
which the Jews have kept before ; though now, after a different 
way from the day of the Jews, this day of the Christians is to 
be kept. His words are: Quanto preponderet prime Sabbati 
sanctificatio, que nobis est data, sanctificationi illi, qué Judeis 
Sabbatum sanctificatum* est, ex comparatione causarum vel 
temporum utriusque sanctificationis advertere licet. Diversis 
enim ex causis, longeque imparibus, et Sabbatum Creator 
noster benedixit, et Primam sabbati idem Ipse Salvator noster 
dedicavit. 


Vv [Ep. lv. Ad inquisitiones Januarii, 
§ 23; tom. 11. col. 136.} 

W [cap. xxxi., sive sect. 36; tom. x. 
col. 269.—Dies enim octavus est in 
hebdomadarum recursibus Dies Domi- 
nicus, quo resurrexit Dominus: et 
petra erat Christus, unde circumci- 
sionis cultellus petrinus ; et caro pre- 
putii, corpus peccati. ] 

* (“Dies tamen Dominicus non 
Judzis, sed Christianis, resurrectione 


Domini declaratus est,”’ &c.; ubi supr. 
not. v. | 

y [ Ubi supr. not. t.] 

7 [Ubi supr. p. 453, not. g. ] 

4 [Ubi supr. not. o. ] 

b [Op., ed. Par. 1601, p. 588.] 

ς [Op., ed. Col. Agrip. 1626, tom. 
Ψ]. Ρ- 26:1 

d [Op., ed. Col. Agr. 1602, tom. ii. 
p- 678. | 


cuenta 


a NTT A 


eee 

















RS i artery oF 





LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH. 457 


And these are enough for the first part, to prove that, 
whatever the late writers think, the ancient Fathers made 
account, that this day was of Divine Institution, and, conse- 
quently, that it was not alterable by the Church. 

II. Follows now the second part, to prove it, at least, 
of Apostolical Institution. And this second point (if it may 
be proved) will strengthen the first. For what the Apostles 
ordained by Christ’s authority may be well said to be done 
and ordained by Christ Himself. If therefore the ancient 
Church held it to be an Apostolical institution, I know no 
reason but we should now hold it to be so still, and by virtue 
thereof hold it likewise, as before, to be immutable. 

In the Apostolical Constitutions® there is mention made of 
it, as of a matter established in the Church before they were 
written. 

And 5. Basil, de Spiritu Sancto‘, (which book though other 
men question, yet I suppose to be of old and good authority,) 
numbers the observation of the Lord’s Day among other 
precepts, that were delivered to the Christian Church by the 
Apostles. So doth 8S. Austin’, or whoever it was that col- 
lected and made the 251 Serm. de Temp. out of his works: 
Dominicum diem Apostoli et Apostolici viri religiosd solenni- 
tate habendum sanxerunt. ... Et ideo sancti Doctores Ecclesie 
decreverunt omnem gloriam Judaici Sabbatismi in illum trans- 
ferre, ut quod ipsi in figura, nos celebremus in veritate. And 
Isychius, in Levitic., lib. 1. 6. 9": Dies qui appellatur Domi- 
nicus, in quo oportebat modis omnibus Apostolos agere Mystica 
et Sacra; nam et nos, illorum sequentes traditionem, Domi- 


nicum Diem Divinis Conventibus sequestramus. 


But that, which will be sure to make it the Apostles’ Con- 
stitution, is indeed S. Augustin’s known rule, lib. iv. de 
Bapt. contra Donat., c. 24%. “If the whole Church observe 
any thing, not having been ordained by any general Council, 
we are certainly to believe it came from the Apostles, and 


“ [Vid. Constit. Apost., lib. ii. cap. 5 [ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. xii. 
47; ap. Cotelerii Patr. Apost., tom.i. Ρ. 87. 
p- 257.—Vid. etiam lib. v. cap. 19, p. * [8 81; tom. ix. col. 140.—Quod 
327; item, lib. vii. cap. 30, p. 375.] universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis 
f (Vid. cap. xxvii. § 66.—Op., ed. imstitutum, sed semper retentum est, 
Ben. Par. 1730, tom. iii. p. 56. ] non nisi auctoritate apostolica tradi- 


8 [al.Serm. celxxx., ὃ 2.—Op., tom. tum rectissime creditur. } 
y. Append. col. 467. | 


458 LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH. 


none else.’ And the Lord’s Day (as Eusebius in Vit. Const. 
ubi supra®) hath the whole Church observed, even from the 
very first day of Christ’s Resurrection ; nor was it ever insti- 
tuted by any general Council: therefore an Apostolical Or- 
dinance it is. 

Now, (as Canus! well distinguisheth,) though there were 
some Apostolical institutions that were temporal, and made 
for certain persons and places only, to continue no longer 
than the necessity of some emergent causes required, and 
were not therefore extended either to all persons or to all 
times to come, yet this of observing the Lord’s Day was none 
of that kind: for it was presently spread over the whole uni- 
versal Church. ΑἸ] men observed it, as a common Law im- 
posed upon them by sacred and divine authority, and from 
the first day of the Resurrection to this very time the observ- 
ance of it hath continued in all ages. This therefore must 
needs be numbered, not among these Instituta Apostolica, 
which Mel. Canus, (I. 11. c.5™,) calls temporaria tantum pre- 
cepta, quorum ratio brevis et ad tempus fuit; but among 
those rather, that there he styles sempiterna, que causam 
habuere sempiternam, ut in Ecclesia servarentur. His instance 
15 in agua permiscendd Calici; bat mine may be with far bet- 
ter reason in die Dominico, which hath been so universally 
kept (and is, I trow, so to be still) without interruption. 

One thing there is, that works strongly upon me: the 
ancient Martyrs died for the defence and observance of this 
day. In their examinations, Dominicum servasti? was the 
usual question propounded to them for their trial: and 
Christianus sum, illum Diem intermittere non possum, was 
ever their answer. 

In process of time, some men’s devotion this way (among 
many others) began to slack, and the precepts of the Apostles 
were not so much regarded as the advancement of the Pope’s 
authority was in the world. 

Then came in the Schoolmen, who, of all writers that I 
find, were the first that began, some to dispute, and some 
plainly to deny, this day to be of apostolical institution. 
Their aim was, of all likelihood, to set up the Pope’s power: 


κ (Vid. p. 455, not. q.] —Op., Col. Agr., 1605, p. 162.] 
1 [De Locis Theolog., lib. iii. cap. 5.  ™[Ibid.] 


LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH. 459 


for to him only they say it belongeth cither to change or 
abrogate the day; which yet I believe they would not have 
said, had they diligently read and considered all the places 
of the Scriptures and the Fathers before mentioned. 

From them our new writers have taken it: only, instead of 
the Pope’s power, they give power to every particular Church 
to change the day as they see cause; though, by their good 
leave, what the Universal Church institutes (were it no 
more) no particular Church can abrogate. But liberty, 
liberty, it was, that in these latter days was so much sought 
after. Neither yet were all the new writers, nor all the 
schoolmen, of this opinion. There are among them, that be 
of another mind. 

Among the schoolmen, Angelus, in his Summ., in 6. 
Ferie® ; and Sylvester, in his Summ., c. Dominica® ; where he 
says besides, that it was the general tenet of all, the common 
opinion, that “the Lord’s Day was of Divine Institution.” 
To them I may add Panormitan, the great canonist, whose 
writings used to be urged with as great force and authority 
as the text of the law itself. His conclusion was, in tit. ix. 
de Feriis?: Dies Dominicus non est Ecclesiastici, sed Divini 
Juris. 

And for late writers, (take we in Chemnitius4, and all,) I 
think my Lord of Winchestert and Mr. Hooker’s* judgment 
as good as any of theirs. 

Their distinction, that it is absolute but not practicé in 
the power of the Church to change or abrogate this day, 


» [Vid. Summ. Angelic. de Casibus νἱπᾶ, sed ecclesiastica constitutione. 


Conscientiz, &c., ed. Argent. 1513, fol. 
ex., A. 2. 

o [Vid. Summe Sylvestrine par. i. 
c. Dominica, ed. Antv. 1581, p. 238.— 
Si vero sunt juris divini, in eis consue- 
tudo locum non habet, ut dies Domini- 
cus, ut communiter tenetur, &c. .. 
Dico consuetudinem non habere locum 
in his que sunt de jure divino, ut hic: 
unde, sicut ecclesiastica lex, ita et 
Ecclesiastica consuetudo, yariare po- 
test tempus diei Dominic, quod ex 
lege positiva et non divina dependet, 
ut dictum est, dummodo sustinetur 
xxiv. horis, quod est juris divinii—At 
the beginning of the chapter, Sylv. 
Prier. says: Dominica dicta est a Do- 
mino;.... succedens Sabbato non di- 


Quod fieri potuit, quia preceptum de 
sanctificatione Sabbati, in quantum 
erat morale, ut scilicet aliquod tempus 
daretur Creatori, mutari non potuit, se- 
cus in quantum erat ceremoniale, &c.] 

p | These words are not found; but 
vid. Nicolai de Tudeschis Lectur., par. 
i, tit. de Feriis, cap. Licet tam, ed. 
Lugd. 1524, tom. ii. fol. 139, A.—No. 
primo, ... Diem Dominicum feria- 
tum lege divina, item lege canonica, et 
lege civili. ] 

q [Vid. Exam. Decret. Cone. Trid., 
par. iv. cap. de Festis, ed. Genev. 1634, 
p- 811.) 

+ [Vid. supr. p. 453. not. h.] 

8 (Eccl. Pol., book v. c. 70. ὃ 8, 9; 
ed. Keble. ] 


400 LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH, 


(which conceit they had from Suarez'‘,) prevails not yet with 
me: for this distinction they might have applied as well to 
the Jews’ Sabbath ; which, for aught that was intrinsically in 
the nature of that day, they might have changed to another, 
had not God’s external precept been upon them, as also we 
might change ours, but that Christ and His Apostles’ precept 
is upon us to the contrary. For, excluding and abstracting 
the Divine positive law, there was not in the Sabbath, there 
was not in the Lord’s Day, any more real holiness than in 
any other. Therefore say I, the Divine Law and the Apo- 
stles having settled and established this Day in all Churches, 
we have no more power to alter it than the Jews had to alter 
their Sabbath. So now I trust, my conclusion may stand, 
being confirmed by so many reasons and such a cloud of 
witnesses : Dies Dominicus non est mutabilis. 

Neither will all this make any thing for the Puritan ; for 
all this, that I have said and hold, makes not the Lord’s Day 
a Jewish Sabbath. This I say against them. 

1. The observance of the Sunday in every week is not 
commanded us by the fourth commandment, as they say 
it is. 

2. Nor is our Sunday to be observed according to the rule 
of the fourth commandment, as they say it is. 

3. Nor hath it the qualities and conditions of the Sabbath 
annexed to it, as they say it hath. 

We believe, and my Lord of Ely” in his late books saith as 
much, that the holy Apostles ordained the Sunday to be a 
weekly holy-day : for else it could not possibly have been so 
suddenly, so universally, dispersed and observed as it was, 
nor continued without interruption so long. But then we 
believe withal, that they abrogated the Sabbath, and the 
ceremonies thereunto belonging, and proper to the Jews 
as Jews. 


' [Francise. Suarez, op. de Virtnte 
et Statu Religionis, lib. ii. cap. iv. § 9; 
ed. Lugd. 1609, p. 164.—Ad argu- 
menta vero de immutabilitate hujus 
precepti per consuetudinem vel legem 
humanam respondetur, simpliciter lo- 
quendo, et quasi de potentia absoluta 
Ecclesize seu Pontificum, tale precep- 
tum mutabile esse, ut argumentum 


probat, tamen practicé ac moraliter 
dici posse aliquo modo immutabile, 
licet ecclesiasticum sit. ] 

u [Dr. Francis White, in his work, 
entitled ‘A Treatise of the Sabbath 
Day,’ Observation 111. concerning the 
Lord’s Day, ed. Lond. 1635, p. 211, 
212. 











LETTER CONCERNING THE SABBATH. 461 


This answers their ‘ Filius Hominis is the Lord of the 
Sabbath :’ and Christ was Lord of it, too, because He had 
power to change it. But every man was not such a lord of 
it, to use it then as he listed, or to change it into what day 
he pleased; no, not their whole Church: nor is any man 
such a lord of the Sunday now ; though a greater lord he is 
of it, than the Jews were of their Sabbath, because it hath 
not such precise observances annexed unto it as that had. 

You seem to rank Dies Dominicus among other ceremonies ; 
and so let it be: but let it be a ceremony instituted by 
Christ and His Apostles withal, and then there is not any 
power in the Church to take it away. 

And, as for the penetrabile telum, NULLUM NUMERALE EST 
MORALE, I believe it to be true: but yet it smites not my 
assertion. For I make not the Lord’s Day, or the eighth 
day, or the seventh day either of old, moral of itself, of 
which that rule is understood, but moral by Christ’s constitu- 
tion only, which hath power to appoint any day. 

Thus I have shewed you my mind at large, which perhaps 
I should not have done so largely neither, but for your 
Gliscit animus promissum videre rescriptum. Such as it is, 
again I submit it unto you, desiring that 1 may with your 
approbation continue still in this mind, till you, and such as 
you are, shall be pleased to shew me a more excellent way. 

Vale (Domine !) in Christo Domino. 
Your assured friend and servant, 


JO. COSIN. 


E Colleg. Sancti Petri scripsi ipso 
Die Dominico, Jan. 24, 1635. 


LETTER TO MR. WOOD. 


[This Letter is preserved among the Cosin manuscript papers in Bp. Cosin’s 
Library at Durham, vol. vii. num. 18; where it is described as being “‘ From 
a MS. of Dr. Cosin’s own writing in the possession of Sir George Wheeler.’’ } 


518, 


T am still where I was. The Church never had a custom 
to fast upon Sundays, neither Greek nor Latin. I honour 
my Lord Morton, but he’ saith nothing against it. The dif- 
ference’ between the Roman and Greek Church was about 
the custom of fasting upon the Saturdays, and the words of 
the VIth council (ta Sabbatis Quadragesime*) meant no more. 
The Greeks were so far from fasting upon the Sundaysy, that 
in honorem Resurrectionis (as you say your books quote it) 
they would not fast upon the Evens neither, that is, upon the 
Saturdays before Easter and Pentecost. The Latin Church,— 
in memoriam Luctus Apostolorum,—they would fast upon the 
Saturday: for upon Saturday was their Luctus, when Christ 
was taken from them, and laid in His grave. So you see the 
reason of both Churches for fasting, and not fasting, upon 
Saturdays: (there was the same difference between Milan 
and Rome in 8. Ambrose his days’, who followed the custom 
of the Greeks :) but all this is nothing to a Sunday fast, con- 
cerning which this saying of Tertullian * was the general rule 
of all Churches: “ Jejunare Die Dominico nefas ducimus.” 


τ [See ‘Catholike Appeale for Pro- 
testants,’ lib. ii. cap. xxiy. sect. i. ὃ ὃ, 
p- 303. | 

“ [See Bingham’s Antiquities, &c., 
Book XIII. chap. ix. § 3.—Works, 
Lond. 1726, tom. i. p. 637.—In the 
Latin Churches, excepting Milan, (Sa- 
turday) was kept as a Fast ; but in all 
the Greek Churches as a Festival. | 

x [Vid, Cone. Quinisext. in Trullo, 


ean. lii., lv., lviimHarduini Concilia, 
ed. par. 1714, tom. iii. col. 1682. ] 

y [See Bingham, p. 638. ] 

(Conf. S. Aug., Ep. xxxvi. ad 
Casulanum, refellens Urbici ... dis- 
sertationem pro Sabbati jejunio, &e.— 
Op., tom. ii. col. 68, et seq. ] 

8 [ Lib. de Corona, § iii., ed. Rigalt., 
Lut. Par. 1664, p. 102. } 





LETTER TO MR. WOOD. 405 


And it was but within this last age, that Dies Sabbati became 
Latin for Sunday. So, desiring you to be hereby satisfied, 
and wishing you heartily well, I rest 
Your very loving friend, 
JO. COSIN. 
Southwell Palace, 
Aug. 26, 1682. 


To Mr. Wood of Wadburgh, in Nottinghamshire. 


LETTER TO HYDE?. 


DR. COSINS TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR HYDE. 


My Lorp, 


....+ When the Bishop of Salisbury returns his answer, 
1 hope it will be to the king’s and your lordship’s full satis- 
faction. It is hard that Dr. Earles should be put to attend 
alone ; but whose fault that is, I do not understand : we have 
been told here, that, besides others, Mr. Flood was sent for 
on purpose to assist him. I humbly thank your lordship 
for renewing your promises of the care that shall be taken 
for my own subsistence, whereof Lord Jermyn taketh no care 
at all; but the allowance, which he desired the king would 
make out of some monies that he would here find for his ma- 
jesty, had no relation to me, but to the rent of a house only 
that he intended to take for the performance of our prayers, 
near to the palace royal, wherein we should have the protec- 
tion of the Queen, if it might cost her no other expense: for 
they hold it here a mortal sin to give one penny towards the 
maintenance of such heretics as Dr. Cosin is. And in the 
mean while Dr. Goffe* is newly brought to be a chaplaim in 
this house; and hath his pension augmented, and all by the 
means of Lord Jermyn. It was expected that Cromwell’s 
death would have wrought a great change, both in England 
and Flanders, before now: but people say that the rebels are* 
courted both by France and Spain. 

The Duchess of Richmond hath been sick in her chamber 
a whole month together, and I have gone daily hence fifteen 
days to attend her there: she promiseth to be firm in reli- 
gion, for which purpose I wish the king would now and then 

> [Printed in Lord Clarendon’s State Roman and Father Confessor to the 
Papers, ed. Oxford, 1786, tom. iii. p. Queen Mother.’’—See Evelyn’s Me- 
418. | moirs, vol.i. p. 12, 360; also two letters 


© [| Dr. Goffe, who had been chaplain from Evelyn to Dr, Pierce, vol. ii. p. 
to Colonel Goring, was “now turned 134,—137. ] 


LETTER TO HYDE. 465 


put a line in his majesty’s letters to her; for she is, and will 
be, more affected with what his majesty writes to her, than 
what all the doctors of the world can say besides. The Earl of 
Lichfield is at Blois, maintained there by her, who hath but 
little left of her own: he is under no tuition at present, 
unless Mr. Givin, one of our late apostates, be again sent to 
him, as I hope he shall not be. Lord Inchiquin* went, a 
month since, with the Lady Dysart, whose great servant he 
is, towards Dieppe, and is not yet returned: his son is here, 
and, if anything may be had by it, we shall shortly have him 
a papist; for his mother can no longer keep him..... It is 
a sad thing to say, but here in the French Court they wear 
mourning apparel for Cromwell, yea, the King of France and 
all do it; and Lockhart (for whom your lordship may be 
pleased to put 301] in the cypher) is shortly expected to come 
hither, and to be treated as before. I shall weary your lord- 
ship with decyphering so many words, and therefore I will 
take leave, and say no more than that I am, 
My Lord, 
Yours, &e. 
Paris, Oct. 18, 1658. 
(An Original.) 


4 [Basire (p. 67) mentions, among _ tothe Lord Inquiquin.’’—This tractate, 
Cosin’s unprinted papers, “ An Answer however, is lost. } 
to a paper delivered by a Popish Bishop 


COSIN. Hh 


ACCOUNT OF CONFERENCE WITH THE ARCH- 
BISHOP OF TRAPEZOND. 


THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNT WAS TRANSCRIBED FROM A PAPER 
FOUND IN BISHOP COSIN’S LIBRARY, IN THE CASTLE AT 
DURHAM, WRITTEN AND SIGNED BY HIMSELF. 


[The original MS. of this paper is now bound up in an interleaved folio Book of 
Common Prayer, A.D. 1619, in the same Library, containing notes by Bp. Cosin. 
it is inserted (accidentally, as it would seem,) in the Psalms, at Psalm 59, the 
xith day of the month. It has been printed by Nichols in his Additional Notes 
on the Book of Common Prayer, at the end. ] 


Ir is true, that, when I sojourned lately in Paris, I con- 
tracted an acquaintance with the venerable prelate Cyril, 
Archbishop of Trapezond, who came often to visit me in my 
lodgings at the Louvre, and the Palais Royal, and had fre- 
quent conference with me concerning the condition and pro- 
fessed region of the Greek, Romish, and English Churches : 
im which conferences his constant assertion was, that the 
rules of faith and religion professed in the Greek Church 
were the Holy Scriptures of God, and the first six general 
Councils, together with the canonical epistles and approved 
writings of the ancient Catholic Fathers and Bishops im 
those times: that the later councils and writers, in the Latin 
or Roman Church, had many novelties in them, both in 
matters of faith and government, which the Greek Church 
would not receive; and that the confession of Faith, the 
liturgy, and the government, established in the Church of 
England, (which, upon several demands by him made, 1 re- 
presented most truly and faithfully to him,) were consonant 
to the orthodox and Catholic religion of the old Greek 
Fathers, with whom it was both his duty and mine, and all 
others’ belonging to our Churches, therein to retain commu- 
nion and unity together. And, it being further demanded 
by me, what divine service they usually had in the Greek 





CONFERENCE WITH THE ARCHBISHOP OF TRAPEZOND. 467 


Church at the celebration and administration of the Holy 
Communion, he answered, that upon Sundays, or the Lord’s 
days, they used 5. Basil’s liturgy, and upon the week-days 
S. Chrysostom’s, which they of the Roman Church call their 
masses. And true it is, that I heard him say 8. Chryso- 
stom’s liturgy in a private chapel at the Louvre, whereunto 
he was for that purpose by some honourable persons invited, 
to say it before her majesty the Queen of England, and 
divers of her attendants there, that they might see the 
manner of it: to the hearing of this liturgy (which they 
term a Greek mass) his highness the Duke of York was also 
invited, who was pleased to send and consult me about it, 
whether he might be present at it or no; and, when I had 
told him that it was much differmg from the Roman mass, 
and that there was a private closet adjoiming to the chapel, 
where he might hear and see what was done, without giving 
any offence, or being seen at it himself, he commanded me 
to wait upon him there, and to declare unto him the several 
passages of that liturgy, which I did, having 8. Chrysostom’s 
liturgy in my hand, and shewing him, as the Archbishop pro- 
ceeded in the recital of it, the differences between it and the 
Roman mass; whereof one was, that in this Greek liturgy 
the Archbishop called out to all, that were present in the 
chapel, to come forth and communicate, though none of them 
so did, but his deacon or minister only, who there attended 
him, and to whom he gave the Sacrament (after he had com- 
municated himself) in both kinds; neither of which rites 
(being both essential to the Holy Communion) are usually 


_ observed among the Romanists. He told me also, when I 


conducted* him to the chamber of an honourable person who 
was desirous to see him, after the liturgy was ended, that, 
had his auditors understood him as well as the common 
Greeks did in his own country, it would not have been said, 
as now it was, in an unknown language to them: which is 
another difference from the Roman mass, in regard of the 
vulgar people that cannot understand it. 

True likewise it is, that here I propounded divers questions 
to him, (as at many other times I did, when he was pleased to 


e [So printed with Cosin’s Notes on _ but the original MS. is, ‘ met him in,”’ 
the Prayer-Book atthe endof Nicholls, &c. ] 


oh 2 


468 CONFERENCE WITH THE ARCHBISHOP OF TRAPEZOND. 


come and yisit me in my own lodging,) concerning the 
Pope’s supremacy, universal obedience to the Church of 
Rome, transubstantiation, invocation of saints, purgatory 
and prayer for the dead: but, that he said anything (as the 
epistler or author‘ of the Fiat Lux said he did) to justify the 
Romish or 'Tridentine new and additional articles of faith, in 
all these particulars, is so far from truth, as that on the con- 
trary he expressed himself, in all my conferences with him, 
to be otherwise minded, and would not acknowledge either 
the bishop of Rome’s superiority and jurisdiction over all 
other Churches, as it is now claimed by him, or that the 
Church of Rome was the mother and mistress of the Greek 
Churches, or that they held either transubstantiation or in- 
vocation of saints to be an article of their Faith, or that they 
prayed for the dead, otherwise than in reference to their 
peaceable rest in the state of death and their happy resur- 
rection to eternal life, constantly denying the late invented 
Roman purgatory, and always professing himself to have 
been heretofore, and still to continue, a disciple and fol- 
lower of Cyrillus, the late Archbishop of Constantinople’, who 
made and consecrated him a Bishop, and whose confession of 
faith is extant, agreeable to the reformed Churches: for 
which his adversaries, (some great zealots among the Jesuits, 
pretending other matters that they had against him,) never 
left their prosecution of him, till they got him strangled by 
the command of the Vizier, and thrown into the sea. 

This is the conference, and this is the story that I had in 
Paris from Cyril Archbishop of 'Trapezond- 


JO. DURESME. 


‘([“ Fiat Lux, or A General Con- & {For an account of Cyril Lucar, 
duct to a right understanding in the see J. M. Neale’s ‘ History of the Holy 
great combustions and broils about Re- Eastern Church,’ B. vi. sect. vii. tom. 
ligion here in England, betwixt Papist 11. p. 356, et seq. | 
and Protestant, Presbyterian and Inde- h (Vid. Cyrilli Zucar. Confess. Christ. 
pendent,” by John Vincent Cane, a Fid., Gr. Lat., ed. 4to. Genev. 16383. ] 
Franciscan Friar, 8°. n. p. 1661. ] 





ACCOUNT OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN SPALATO 
AND BISHOP OVERALL’: 


Excerpt. ex Schedis MSS. ἢ. THom& SMIrHI. 
COLLECTANEA DE COSINO. 


In the convocation, 1661, Bishop Cosin presented to the 
President a book of articles of enquiry to be used im the 
visitation of every Bishop*. This first referred to a Com- 
mittee. 

In the same session the President and Bishop consulted 
about a public form of consecrating churches and chapels, 
and which was committed to the sole care of Bishop Cosin'. 

He had a great part in the conference between the Bishops 
and Episcopal divines, and the Presbyterian ministers at the 
Savoy. 


E Schedis MSS. Costnt. 


Born in Norwich, 30 Nov. 1595: eldest son of his parents. 

At his being thirteen years of age, his father died, and left 
him several houses, which he gave up to his mother, re- 
serving only £20 yearly for his maintenance at Cambridge. 

At fourteen years of age sent to Cambridge, 1610, and 
admitted scholar in Gonvil and Caius College, 25 March 
1610. Eighteen years old, in the year 1614, Bachelor of 
Arts. 

About two years after, (1616,) invited by Bishop Andrewes, 
(then of Ely,) and Bishop Overall, (Bishop of Lichfield), to 
come to London, to take care of their libraries. By the 
persuasion of his tutor he chose to live with Bishop Overall, 


? [This paper is preserved in Gutch’s 
Collectanea Curiosa, vol. ii. num. iv. 
p- 18, et seq. ] 

k [Conf. Wilkins’ Concil., ed. Lond. 
1737, tom. iv. p. 566.] 

1 [The form prepared by Cosin was 
committed to four Bishops, viz. Robert 
Bishop of Oxford, Humphrey Bishop 


of Sarum, Robert Bishop of Lincoln, 
and John Bishop of Coventry and Lich- 
field, for revision; but it is now lost. 
—Vid. Cardwell’s Synodal., p. 677.— 
Conf. Wilkins’ Concilia, tom. iv. 
566; item, conf. Abp. Wake’s MSS. 
Miscel. 42, 43. ] 


470 ACCOUNT OF CONFERENCE 


then Bishop of Lichfield, who gave him not only the keep- 
ing of his library, but made him his secretary, and com- 
mitted to him the care of his episcopal seal. 

The divines sent to the synod of Dort, nominated and 
selected by George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, and 
Sir Dudley Carleton, then Secretary of State, both zealous 
followers and maintainers of the doctrine of Calvin in the 
points of predestination and reprobation. 

Four scholarships in Caius College appropriated to the city 
of Norwich, into one of which he was chosen. 

By keeping Bishop Overall’s library, he began to learn, 
“quanta pars eruditionis erat bonos nosse auctores:? (which 
was the saying of Joseph Scaliger:) in the knowledge of 
which he would instruct him. 


A. Spalato came into England in 1616, being desirous to 
live under the protection of King James, having before been 
recommended by Padre Paolo. By King James’s bounty 
and care he was safely conveyed through Germany into 
England, and lodged in Lambeth palace: Abbot thinking fit 
to retire to Croydon, till either Bishop Andrewes or Bishop 
Overall had conferred with him. 

The king sent Bishop Overall to him, who took in his 
company his secretary, and commanded him to be near 
him the same morning Spalato arrived, to hear what passed 
between them. 

After dinner, some other being present, the discourse 
began about the state of the Church of England; of which 
Overall having given a large account, Spalato received great 
satisfaction, and made his protestation, that he came into 
England then to live with us in the union and profession of 
that Catholic religion, which was so much obstructed in his 
own country, that he could not with safety and peace of 
conscience live there any longer. Then he added what 
satisfaction he had received from the monitory preface of 
King James to all the Estates and Churches of Christendom™ ; 
wherein the true ancient Faith and Religion of the Catho- 
lic Church is set forth, and no heterodoxies or novelties 


m [Vid. Apology forthe Oath of Al- James’ Works, ed. fol. Lond. 1616, p. 
legiance, ed. 4°. Lond. 1609; item, K. 287, et seq. ] 





BETWEEN SPALATO AND BISHOP OVERALL. 47] 


maintained; to the defence of which Faith, and service of 
which Church, as he had already a long time applied his 
studies, and wrote ten books De Republicdé Ecclesiasticd, so, 
by the favour of God, and King James, he was now come 
into England to review and publish them", together with the 
History of the Council of Trent °, which he had brought with 
him from Padre Paolo of Venice, who delivered it into his 
hands; by whom he was chiefly persuaded and encouraged 
to have recourse to the King and the Church of England, 
being the best founded for the profession of true Catholic 
doctrine, and the freest from error and novelties of any 
Church in all places besides. 

Then they descended to the particular points of doctrine, 
and abusive practices, &c.; in all which the Archbishop agreed 
with the Bishop, and said, that they were all, either the fond 
opinions and bold practices of private men, or the ungrounded 
conceits and conclusions of the schoolmen, or the papal de- 
crees of Innocent III., Eugenius IV., and other Popes who 
succeeded them, but no determinations or decrees of the 
Catholic Church ?. 

He‘ wrote a compendious history of his own life in English, 
to which he put this Latin title: Vite mee ab initio, 1. e. ab 
anno 1595, usque ad presentem annum 1665, brevis enarratio ; 
of which I have seen a small fragment: the rest lost. The 
English title in another paper is this: “A brief and true enar- 
ration of the whole course of my life, set forth in the annals 
thereof from the year 1595 to this present year 16—.” 

He wrote also Selecta Bibliotheca Historicorum, tam Ee- 
clesiasticorum, quam Secularium, now in the hands of Mr. 


pen oa 


n [Published in Lond., par. i. 1617, 4 [i.e. Cosin. ] 
par. ii. 1620.] τ Carolus Hattonus, Armiger.—T. 
ο [{ Publisbed in London, 1619.] Smithi Prefat. ad Vitas quorundam 


P [For a further account of Ant.de — erudiss. et illust. Virorum, p. viii. [ 64. 
Dominis, Abp. of Spalato, see Hisé. 1707.) 
Trans., cap. ii. § 7, supr. pp. 27, 28.] 


LETTER TO BISHOP MORTON‘. 


My VERY REVEREND AND HONOURED GOOD LORD, 


I wave often presented my service to your lordship by 
others, and now I have an occasion offered me to present 
both my suit and service to you by myself. Many times I 
meet here with those that are the masters of popish novelties, 
and the professed enemies of our truly catholic and protes- 
tant religion ; and many controversies I have had with them, 
but especially with those limitors that come creeping into 
our pale, and hunt for proselytes, whereof they have not 
(God be thanked) been able for these four years’ space to 
get one, unless it were a poor footman, (whom they trapped 
with a female French bait too,) and have lost some others of 
more considerable quality, whom they had lured into their 
nets before. 

Among others I met, not long since, with one of their 
Fathers (as they call them) of the Oratory, who, being weary 
himself, fetched in a couple of subsidiary Sorbonists, that 
would take upon them to be somebody. But, when all the 
old Fathers and Councils failed them for the maintenance 
of their new inventions, (whereof their ¢ransubstantiation, 
their necessity of auricular confession, and the jurisdiction of 
their universal Father the Pope, were then in agitation be- 
tween us,) they betook themselves to their twelve hundred 
new fathers, the authority of the council of Lateran, (where 
they say so many were gathered together) under Pope Inno- 
cent the third, a council that they use to magnify above all 
the councils of the world that were ever before it. Among 
other just exceptions, therefore, that I took against that 
council, and the pretended Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches 


τ [This letter is printed out of the 
Birch collection of manuscripts in the 
Brit. Mus., num. 4155, vol. Ixviii. p. 
273.—It was first published in 1730, in 
“‘The Present State of the Republic of 
Letters,’ vol. vi. art. iii,, having been 


communicated by Des Maizeaux, in 
connexion with the Memorial against the 
Council of Lateran, which next follows. 
—The two copies of this letter corre- 
spond, except in one or two minute 
points. ] 





LETTER TO BISHOP MORTON. 473 


who were said to have been present there, and to have come 
thither at the Pope’s call, I told them, out of Platina’, and 
others, their own writers, that, whatever their Binius, or 
their Vatican, or their Surius, or their Crab, hath printed and 
published to the world, yet the most probable truth was, 1. 
That there were no decrees or canons passed conciliariter, and 
made by the authority of that council at all: and, 2. That 
the pretended canons, (which those later editions of the 
Councils have obtruded upon the world,) are nothing else 
but the papal decrees of Pope Innocent himself, collected out 
of their Canon Law, and first set forth by P. Crab, and Coch- 
leus, (a man not greatly to be trusted,) whom the other 
publishers of the Councils have since followed. 

This answer seeming new and strange to them, that (as 
great knowers as they boast themselves to be) never heard of 
any such matter before, gave them occasion to search into 
those books which I alleged to them for that purpose. And 
among others I quoted them, for the first part of my answer, 
Matth. Paris in his Historid Minori, as he is alleged by 
Matth. Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Antiquit. 
Ecclesia Britannice' ; and, for the second part, I cited them 
the edition of those canons as they are printed and made a 
part of Pope Innocent the third’s own works", and Cochlzus’s 
epistle besides, printed before the Lateran Council in the 
edition that P. Crab* first made of it, as I found it cited to 
my hand by a note that I had some time past taken thereof 
out of your lordship’s excellent and learned book, “The 
Protestant’s Appeale’.” 

At the first of these citations they stick, because Matth. 
Paris’s Minor Historia was never yet printed, and here it is 
not to be seen in MS. But the second they utterly deny ; 


5 [De vitis Pont. Rom., 6. Innoc. et seq. ] 
III., ed. Lovan. 1572, p. 165.]} x Via. Crab. Concilia, ed. Colon. 


t In vita Steph. Langton, “[Matth. 
Parker, Antiquit.] p. 158, lin. 46. edit. 
Hanoy. 1605. [The Minor History of 
Matth. Paris is still in MS. only. } 

u [Vid. ‘‘ Sacri concilii generalis La- 
teranensis, sub D. Innocentio pontifice 
maximo hujus nominis. ITI. celebrati, 
anno Domini 1215, Decreta ab eodem 
D. Innocentio conscripta, et in eum qui 
sequitur ordinem digesta;’’ ap. Inno- 
cent, op., ed. Colon. 1575, tom. i. p. 461, 


1538, tom. ii. fol. clix.—The passage 
of Cochleus’ Epistle here referred to 
by Cosin is, most of it, put before the 
Lateran canons, in the form of an ad- 
monition to the reader, in P. Innocent’s 
own works, ubi supr. p. 460. } 

y Page 486, in the margin, at the 
letter i, of the ‘Catholike Appeale for 
Protestants,’ &c., printed at London, 
1699, fol., by Thomas Morton, [lib. iv. 
cap. x. sect. 2.] 


474. LETTER TO BISHOP MORTON. 


and confident they say they are, that there is no such epistle 
of Cochleus to be found in Crab’s edition of the Councils : 
for declaration whereof they produce his edition at Cologne, 
ex officind Johannis Quintel, Anno Domini 1551, in three 
volumes, where indeed there is no such epistle extant that I 
can find. But I suspect some fraud in that edition: for Crab 
(as some other notes of mine tell me) had set forth the Coun- 
cils before, ann. 1538"; and like it is, they were so ashamed of 
Cochlzus his epistle in his first edition, that they left it out 
in the second. But that first edition I cannot here, by any 
means or search, meet withal. I have therefore two re- 
quests to make unto your lordship. 1. The one, concerning 
this your own citation of Cochlzeus’s epistle out of Crab, that 
you would be pleased to employ Mr. Barwick’, or some other 
at your command, to make a search for the book, (which 
I make no question will be easily found out in some of the 
libraries at London*,) and to inform me certainly, in what 
edition of Crab that epistle of Cochlzus is to be seen. And 
because, when that is done, I make a question whether I 
shall be ever able to find the book here or no, (for I think 
they make riddance of it as fast as they can, that their later 
editions of the Councils may only stand in view,) I shall 
make it my further suit to your lordship, that, when 
you have found out the book, you would cause the pas- 
sage”, (which you have cited in your Appeal,) to be trans- 
cribed, and attested under their hands that have seen 
and read it im Crab. And, when I have it so attested, 
I shall be able to stop the Sorbonists’ mouths with it, 
that in the meanwhile think themselves safe and free in 
this particular, and clamour (as their use° is) against our false 
citations. 2. The other is, concerning the passage in Matth. 
Paris, as it is quoted by Matth. Parker, that your lordship 
would likewise be pleased to let a search be made for that 
Minor Historia, which (as I have been heretofore informed) 


y [“ An. 1598,” perperam Jegitur, in tion in the Brit. Mus., in which Coch- 


ed. Des Maizeaux. | leus’ Epistle is found.—See also above, 
7 [Dr. John Barwick afterwards  p. 473, note x. | 

preached Bp. Morton’s funeral Sermon, > [‘ Title-page,’” ed. Des Maiz. ] 

which he published with his Life of © [Conf. Hist. Trans., cap. vii. ὃ 20, 

Morton, 4°. Lond. 1660. ] supr. p. 127, not. k. | 


4 [There is a copy of this first edi- 





LETTER TO BISHOP MORTON. 475 


is to be seen im the king’s library at S. James’s, where Mr. 
Patrick Young (one that delights in antiquities, and whom I 
have always very much esteemed) will be ready to serve your 
lordship’s desires in that behalf, and permit any that you 
will send to him to transcribe that passage (it is not above 
eight lines in Archbishop Parker) out of the manuscript. 
And I desire to have that also attested, that they may be 
forced to give the more credit here to it, when it comes. 

And herein your lordship will do me a singular favour, the 
acknowledgment whereof I shall add to many others that I 
have used to receive from you heretofore. 

I shall but trouble your lordship with a few lines more, 
and make an end. Oftentimes have I heard it from my 
Lord Overall, (when I had the happiness to live with that 
rare and excellent man,) that, when he was prolocutor of 
the Convocation-house, Anno Domini 1606, there was a 
certain book, (made, as I remember, by Archbishop Bancroft, 
or by some other at his appointment,) then proposed and 
read before [all] the clergy, who formally gave their pla- 
cets to it, to have it published and printed in the name of the 
whole synod. It was a book (if my memory fail me not) as- 
serting the just authority of the King’s supremacy in causes 
ecclesiastical, and setting forth the unjust authority claimed 
and usurped by the Bishop of Rome over Kings, and all 
other Bishops of the world. I think there be few living 
now, besides your lordship, that were members of that 
Convocation ; and I would gladly receive your lordship’s 
knowledge of that book,—by whom it was penned? how far 
it passed in the synod? and what became of it at last“? 

My notes tell me, that, in the end of your former citation 
concerning the pretended council of Lateran, (which in your 
index® also to that appeal you called xo Council,) you added 
this exception to it, that no other council of Lateran can be 


tions as to the lawfulness of taking the 
oaths to the government under King 
William and Queen Mary, ἅς, [Edi- 


4 This Book has been since printed 
under the title of Bishop Overall’s Con- 
vocation Book; and made a great noise 


after the Revolution, especially upon 
occasion of Dr. Sherlock, afterwards 
Dean of S. Paul’s, appealing so often 
to it in his case of Allegiance due to 
Sovereign powers, and his several de- 
fences of it, for the change of his no- 


tor’s note in the Present State of the 
Republic of Letters.—It has been printed 
again for the Ang]. Cath. Library, Ox- 
ford, 1844. ] 

e {See Table, at the end, under the 
word Council. | 


1Ted. Des. 
Maiz. | 


476 LETTER TO BISHOP MORTON. 


produced, whereunto those words, (viz. in concilio Lateranensi 
hoc prohibitum,—hoc definitum est,) can have reference ; and 
truly, if that could be made good, it were the only best argu- 
ment against it. For what can be more absurd and unlikely, 
than that a council then sitting should quote itself for mat- 
ters passed and decreed before that time? But Bellarmine, 
in his book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, at his Observat. of 
Innocent III., and Binius$ in his margin at this council, re- 
fer all such-like passages and citations to a former Lateran 
council under Alexander the third, where they are to be 
found; and whereof I desire your lordship’s judgment. 

And thus your lordship may perceive, while the world is 
busy about other matters at home, what my employments 
and studies are abroad, being in love with nothmg so much 
as the truth and purity of the protestant religion, which was 
wont to be professed in the Church of England, and there 
maintained against all the enemies of it, by such champions 
as your lordship is, and I trust will be so still. For which end 
God send peace there, and your lordship yet a longer life: 
which is the prayer of a banished man, but one that, beimg 
extremely desirous to return to you and receive your bene- 
diction, is 

Your lordship’s most faithful and humble servant, 
JO. COSIN. 
S. Germ., Aug. 8, 1648. 


My Lady the Countess of Denbigh and I use to speak often 
together of your lordship. She bids me present her service 
to you. 


‘ [Op., ed. Col. Agr. 1617, tom. vii. Cone. Later. sub Aleaandro III., cap. 


col. 155. ] iv. p. 658, cap. xviii. p. 660, cap. xiii. 

8 [Vid. Binii Coneilia, Cone. Late- ibid., cap. vill. p. 658, cap. 1x. p. 659. 
ran. sub Innocent. ITL., Innocentiiepist., —Conf. Letter to Blondell, p. 482.— 
pp- 796,797; item, cap. xi. p. 810, cap. ** Cui tamen obstat, quod apud Caran- 


xxix. p. 813, cap. xxxiii. p. 814, cap. zam legimus,. . . fuisse in hoc concilio,” 
xlvi. p. 816, cap. Ixi. p. 820; et conf. &c. | 








A MEMORIAL OF DR. COSINS, FORMERLY 
BISHOP OF DURHAM}, 


AGAINST WHAT THE ROMANISTS CALL THE GREAT GENERAL 
COUNCIL OF LATERAN, UNDER INNOCENTIUS THE THIRD, 
SAID TO BE MAXIMUM ET CELEBERRIMUM CONCILIUM, 
A.D. 1215. 

I. Maximum: For the number of eight hundred Priors 
and Abbots! (who had no voices in councils but by privilege 
from the Pope) was as great again as the number of the 
Bishops. 

Celeberrimum: For it was every where famous for this one 
thing of special note in it, that so many men met together to 
no purpose: met, but did nothing. Therefore, of this so 
great and so famous a council, these be the words of Platina 
(who was the Pope’s own Secretary) in vitd Innocentii IIL* : 
« Venere multa tum quidem in consultationem, nec decerni ta- 
men quicquam aperte potuit, quod et Pisani et Genuenses ma- 
ritimo, et Cisalpini terrestri, bello inter se certarent. Eo ita- 
que proficiscens, tollenda discordie causd, Pontifex Perusit 
moritur.” And to the same purpose are the words of Matth. 
Paris, (in Historid minori',) who lived in the same time when 
this Council was called together: “ Concilium illud generale, 
quod more papali grandia prima fronte pre se tulit, in risum et 
scomma desiit, quo Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Deca- 
nos, Archidiaconos, omnesque ad id concilium accedentes,.. . 
ludificatus est.” (For, after the Pope was gone to appease the 
tumults between the Genuenses and them of Pisa, there was 
nothing done.) Et, “cum nihil geri in tanto negotio cerne- 
rent, redeundi ad sua cupidi, veniam sigillatim petierunt. 
Quibus Papa non concessit, antequam sibi grandem pecuniam 
promisissent : guam a mercatoribus Romanis prius accipere 


h [ Originally published, togetherwith | Concil., tom. vii. par. ii. p. 824. ] 


the preceding letter to Bishop Morton, k [De vitis Pont. Max., ed. Lovan. 
in the Present State of the Republic of 1572, p. 165.) 
Letters, July 1730, art. iv.; vol. vi. 1 [Vid. Letter to Bp. Morton, supr. 
p- 65, et seq. p- 473, note t.] 


' [Vid, notas in Cone. Lat., ap. Binii 


478 MEMORIAL AGAINST 


mutuo, Papeque solvere, coacti sunt, (ante) quam discedere Ro- 
md potuissent. Papa jam acceptd pecunid quastuosum [hoc] 
concilium dissolvit gratis, totusque Clerus abit tristis.” 

II. There be many things besides, which may make us 
justly to suspect the authority of this pretended great council. 
For, first, before Cochlzus put it forth, it was never extant: 
and it was but lately, neither, that he put it forth, m the 
year 1538. Three years before, when Merlin put forth the 
Councils, there was no such council, that he met withal, to 
set out: it is not in his edition. But Cochleus, (a man not 
so well to be trusted, and who feigned many things in writing 
Luther’s life,) tells us, that he had the decrees of this council 
out of an ancient book™: but, where he got that book, or who 
first compiled it, or of what authority it was, he tells us 
nothing at all. It is most likely that ancient book was no 
other, but the book of the Pope’s Decretals; where those 
things, that are said by him to be decreed in this council, 
are here and there scattered in several places. Those scatter- 
ings (I believe) did Cochleeus or some other collect together, 
and made up one body of them, in manner and form of a 
council. But so ill-favoured a form hath he given it, that 
it often betrayeth itself not to be genuine and taken out of 
any authentic copy. 

III. For, secondly, who will believe, who can persuade 
himself, that this council of Lateran should cite the Council 
of Lateran in the decrees and canons which were there com- 
piled? that is, that it should cite ifse/f, as a council not now 
sitting", but passed and held a long time (or some time at 
least) before it? The style of other councils useth to be, 
‘Hee sancta synodus decernit,’ or “ Placuit huie sancte sy- 
nodo,’ as a session now in being, when they make their de- 
cree. But this council of Lateran speaks of itself, as of some 
other Lateran council, which then was at that time sitting, 
(fuit, and noscitur fuisse,) as of some decrees made before, six 
several times together, once in the eleventh chapter°, twice 


m (“ Mitto itaque decreta Cone. La- Colon. 1538, tom. ii. fol. clix.] 
teranensis olim ex antiquo descripta n [ Observe the doubt, however, which 
codice, que pro sua et celebritate et Cosin acknowledges in his letter to 
utilitate sunt 5. libris Decretal. Juris Morton, supr. p. 476. | 
Canon. maxima ex parte sparsim in- ° [Vid. Letter to Morton, supr. p. 
serta.’’—Pref. Conc. Later., ed. Crab., 476, not. g. ] 


THE COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 479 


in the twenty-ninth?, three times more in the thirty-third4, 
forty-sixth', and sixty-first® chapters :-—“ In Lateranensi con- 
cilio pid fuit institutione provisum:” “De multa providentia 
fuit in Lateranensi concilio prohibitum: “ Devolvatur collatio 
secundum statutum Lateranensis concilit :’? et, “ In Lateranensi 
concilio noscitur fuisse prohibitum.’ Will any man think 
these be the words of the council of Lateran itself? 

IV. Therefore, thirdly, Cochleus is fain to excuse the 
matter by a conjecture, (in his preface’ to this council set 
forth by Crab,) that these decrees were collected and brought 
into this form, wherein he presents them, by Pope Innocen- 
tius himself, some while after the council was done. He 
cites three" chapters of the council to that purpose, (three of 
those six that are named before,) and says: “The reader will 
easily deprehend as much.” But what reader will like it 
well, that the decrees of a council should be written some 
while after the council is ended? It was always the use of 
councils to write their own decrees, and to sign them too, 
before they went away. And Innocent the Pope was not so 
weak a scribe, as to make the synod itself speak after such 
a manner: “Jn Lateranensi concilio noscitur fuisse prohibi- 
tum ;” ov “ Fiat hoc, secundum quod provisum est in Lateranenst 
coneilio,” &c.: which certainly is not the style of the same 
council concerning itself. Innocent the third knew well 
enough what belonged to it. 

V. We had best therefore believe Platina*: “ Non est decre- 
tum ibi quicquam:” “non potuit ibi decerni quicquam.” “ Impro- 
bavit (Innocentius ipse) Abbatis Joachim libellum :” “ damnavit 
(ipse) Almericum.” He says, it was not the council of Lateran, 
that made any decrees to condemn them; but that Pope 
Innocent condemned them himself. And we may well con- 
clude, that both these and other things, de guibus nihil decer- 
ni potuit in concilio, were by the Pope set down in his own 
decretals; out of which he took those canons, whoever he 
was, that compiled them into the form of a council. 


Pp [Vid. Letter to Morton, supr. p. 


476. not. g.] 

4 [Ibid.] 

τ [Ibid. ] 

5 [ Ibid. ] 

‘ [Veruntamen ab ipso Papa Inno- 
centio in hane redacta sunt formam 


aliquanto post celebratum concilium : 
id, quod cordatus lector facile depre- 
hendet ex capitulis quibusdam, pre- 
sertim ex XXix., eX XXXiii., ex Ixi.— 
Crab., ed. 1538, tom. ii. fol. clix.] 

u (29, 33, and 61.] 

x {De vitis Pont. Rom., p. 165. ] 


480 MEMORIAL AGAINST 


VI. For the third canon of this councily (concerning the 
excommunication of temporal Princes, and the Pope’s power 
to free their subjects from all obedience to them, and to give 
away their kingdoms,) is indeed one of the Extravagants, 
cap. 13, De heereticis”, that is, Pope Innocent’s own decree, 
and not the council’s of Lateran, ubi nihil decerni potuit. Soin 
the seventy-first canon, concerning the recovery of the Holy 
Land from the Saracens, (for which this council was chiefly 
called, and met together,) the compiler hath made the words 
to run in a Pope’s style, and not in the style of a Council: 
“ Ad liberandam terram sanctam de manibus impiorum, .. . sacro 
concilo approbante, definimus,’ &c. Neither in the council 
was there any such decree made, as both Cardinal Bellar- 
mine (against King James’s Apology”) and Eudzmon Cydo- 
nius (in his Parall. Torti et Tortor.*) do confess out of Platina. 
He therefore that made these two decrees, of absolving sub- 
jects from obedience to their princes, and of recovering the 
land of promise from the Saracens, may well be thought to 
have made that decree also of transubstantiation, which hath 
made such a noise in the world, and for which this council is 
so often quoted under the name of “ Maximum omnium, Gene- 
rale, et Celeberrimum Concilium.” 

VII. But, as it should seem, he that first composed it, and 
styled it so, or afterwards set it forth, and entitled it a gene- 
ral council, had not his lesson perfect. For, between the 
seventh and the eighth general council, I trow there can- 
not another General Council intervene, as this notwithstand- 
ing is made to do, if it were so great and so general as they 
say it is. They count the second of Nice? for the seventh 
general, which was held in the year 787; and the council of 
Florence, (held in the year 1439°,) for the eighth general, as 
is there, in the last session of it, expressly set down’: “ Finis 


Υ [Binii Concil., tom. vii. par. ii. p. 
807. ] 

* (Vid. Greg. IX. Decretal., lib. v. 
tit. vil. cap. xiii.—Corp. Jur. Can., ed. 
Par. 1612, tom. ii. col. 1540, et seq. | 

® [Binii Concil., tom. vii. par. ii. p. 
822.] 

» (Resp. ad Apol.—Op., tom. vii. 
col. 666. } 

¢ (Vid. cap. iv., ed. Col. Agr. 1611, 
pp. 180, 181. | 


4 [Binii Concil., tom. vi. p. 1.] 

© [** 1449,” perperam legitur in ed. 
Des Maiz. | 

f [These words do not oceur in the 
editions of the Councils by Binius, 
Labbe, cr Harduinus; but in the edi- 
tion of Surius, (Col. Agr. 1567, tom. 
iv. p. 469,) and in the Vatican edition 
of Sixtus V., (Venet. 1585, ap. Domi- 
nic. Nicolin., tom. iv. p. 896,) at the 
end of the Conelusio ‘‘ Generalis VIII. 


i li en 











THE COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 48] 


octavt concilii generalis factus est, 21 Juli,’ κα. So that, 
unless they will make two eighth general councils, this of 
Lateran could be none. 

VIII. Besides, if it were a general council, how came it to 
pass, that the canons of it were never generally received ?— 
as amongst us, in the Church and kingdom of England, they 
were not; and as without doubt they would have been, had 
the council in those days been accounted general, and the 
decrees of it under that style and title sent abroad into the 
world. But with us in England, ever since that time, and con- 
trary to the forty-sixth* pretended canon of it, subsidies have 
been paid to the King inconsulto Pontifice ; and, against the 
forty-first® canon, with us currit prescriptio, though often- 
times ex bond fide ortum non habeat. And yet again, contrary 
to the third! canon there, with us Clericorum bona, qui de he- 
resi convicti sunt,—they go not to the use of the Church, but 
are always brought into the King’s exchequer. 

IX. Lastly, I believe no good story can be shewed, to 
confirm the pretended title of this council, that the Patri- 
archs of Jerusalem and of Constantinople were present at 
it, and seventy Metropolitans besides: though that will not 
make it general, neither, for want of the two other Patri- 
archs of Antioch and Alexandria, who are not mentioned to 
have been among them. MHowsoever, Nihil ibi actum quod 
quidem constet ; and so was it neither any General Council, 
nor properly indeed so much as any council at all. 

Synodi sess. ult. Florentiz,’’ occur the vii. par. ii. p. 816.] 
words: “Finis Generalis Octave sy- h {Ibid.} 


nodi Florentine.’’ | i [Ibid., p. 807. ] 
& [Binii Concil., ed. Par. 1636, tom. 


COSIN. - εἰ 


LETTER TO BLONDELL. 


[The rough draught of this Letter, in Cosin’s own hand, is preserved in Bishop 
Cosin’s Library at Durham; scil. MS. 40 of vol. vii., containing ‘ Letters, 
Latin, English, and French.” ] 


OPTIME ET LITERATISSIME VIR, 

Qu# meis nuper responsa quesitis retulisti, ea tam mihi 
fuerunt grata, quam quee solent esse cuivis gratissima. Sunt 
enim per omnia plane ad mentem meam dilucide explicata, 
optimisque rationibus confirmata, atque ad detegendas papis- 
tarum fraudes et imposturas, quibus homines rerum eccle- 
siasticarum imperiti ludificantur, maxime idonea. Attamen 
subest adhuc mihi scrupulus de Ῥαρὰ Innocentio, et de for- 
mula canonum qui ab ipso in hoc suo Lateranensi concilio 
propositi et recitatiesse dicuntur: censeo enim cum Episcopo 
nostro Cicestriensi contra Tortum, (p. 215°*,) non tam vappam 
aut mertem fuisse Innocentium, ut synodum de seipsi lo- 
quentem induceret, tanquam de alia aliqué synodo peregrina, 
idque sex minimum locis :—“ In Lateranensi concilio pii fuit 
institutione provisum :’—“Jn hoe Lateranensi concilio fuit 
prohibitum :’—*“ In Lateranensi concilio noscitur fuisse pro- 
hibitum,” ὅσο. ; que omnia de preterito, magis quam jam se- 
dente, concilio dicta esse videntur. An ergo cum Cochleof per 
Episcopum ibidem citato sentiendum, “ab ipso Papa Inno- 
centio hee decreta in formam hance redacta fuisse aliquanto 
post celebratum concilium: id, quod cordatus (inquit) lector 
facile deprehendet ex capitulis quibusdam,”’ &c.; an dicen- 
dum potius, hujusmodi sex decreta (uti quidam pontificii, 
nescio qui fide, perhibent) ex canonibus concilii Lateranensis 
sub Papi Alexandro tertio® desumpta fuisse, atque eodem 
referenda; cui tamen obstat quod apud Caranzam legimus, in 
Sum. Cone., (Cone. Lat. c. 29, De multi provid.") “ fuisse 
in hoc,” non in alio, “concilio prohibitum,” &c. ;—ob inopiam 


6 [Andr., Tortur. Torti, ed. Lond. 8 [Vid. Letter to Morton, p. 476, 
1609. | not. g.—Item, Memorial, § iii. supr. p. 
‘ In prefat. Later. Concil. secun- 498, not. n. ] 
dum Crab. [ Vid. Memorial, ὃ iv. supr. b fed. Ludg. 1587, fol. 426, A.] 


p- 479, not. t. | 











LETTER TO BLONDELL. 483 


librorum (qui vel maxime discrutior) non mihi satis comper- 
tum, quid in hac re statuendum sit, quare operam ego tuam 
(doctissime et humanissime Blondelle) atque judicium ex- 
posco. 

Utinam vero indicares mihi paginam, ubi verba Matthei 
Parisiensis ex historiA διὰ minori a te prolata! inveniri pote- 
rint: atque etiam quibus auctoribus aut firmamentis nixus 
neminem affirmas ex orientalibus oriundum (unum si exci- 
piam Alexandrinz Ecclesize diaconum) huic concilio inter- 
fuisse, et quomodo tandem factum sit, ut ex omnibus oricn- 
talibus Alexandrinus Patriarcha sese Innocentio Pape sub- 
miserit, cujus unius auctoritate conc. indictum et convo- 
catum est. Vult in Domino tibi addictissimus, 

Jou. Cosinus. 

Clarissimo doctissimoque viro, D. 

Davidi Blondello, Parisiis. 

S. Ger. Aug. 8. 1646. 


i [Apparently in a private letter, as the citation from Matt. Par. is not found 
in any of Blondell’s published works. ] 


LETTER TO MERIC CASAUBON. 
[Ex MSS. Burneian., Brit. Mus.; num. 363, vol. 1, p. 161.] 


Cosinus suo Casausono S. D. 


ONERASTI verecundiam meam (optime et amantissime Ca- 
saubone) quod secundo scripseras, priusquam ego primis tuis 
responsum dederam. Siccine vero officia nondum compen- 
sata preevenire soleas? Dispeream, ni vel otio tuo, vel oris 
ubertati invideo, qui tanta molestationum turbi undequaque 
opprimor, ut vix vacat aures scalpere,—ex tanta sermonis 
penuria laboro, ut, si maxime fuisset otium, poterat me 
cultissimus tuus et sponte fiuens stylus a scribendo deterrere. 
Desuetudo loquendi pene me elinguem reddidit, usus te 
copiosum fecit ; et merito nobis Anglis vitio vertitur, quod 
raro admodum aut sermonem aut calamum nostrum exer- 
ceamus: verum non potiar quod formido, ut silentium nos- 
trum tertiam quoque a te epistolam exprimeret. Nescio quo- 
modo evenit, sed, ex quo edes nostras et urbem reliqueris, 
meus non fui, atque adeo nec tuus esse potui. Literas tuas 
1). Lindsellio*® tradidi eo ipso quo acceperim momento. Sa- 
lutem remittit plurimam, literas nullas; nec illi vacat : com- 
munis ei mecum causa est molestiarum moles, quam nobis 
comitia' ista crearunt: proinde securum te esse jubet de 
amore suo absque officiosis istis epistolis. 

Interim de rebus tuis magis sollicitus est dominus noster 
Episcopus Dunelmensis™, quam ut magna aut multa sollicita- 
tione egeat. Novit ille opportuna et mollia fandi tempora, 
nec quicquam pretermittet pro oblata occasione, quod in 
commodum tuum cessurum esse arbitratus fuerit. Libellus 
tuus" a me patria donatus Jingud nondum typis mandatur : 


Κ [Dr. Augustin Lindsell, editor of 
Theophylacti Comm. in S. Pauli Epist., 
(vid. ed. Lond. 1636.) He became 
Dean of Lichfield in 1628, Bishop of 
Peterborough in 1632, and Bishop of 
Hereford in 1633.—Fasti Oxonienses, 
vol. i. col. 360; and Watt’s Bibl. Brit., 
sub nom. | 

'{A parliament was called to as- 
semble, Feb, 12, 1623, 4.] 


m [Dr. Richard Neile, whose do- 
mestie chaplain Cosin was at this time. | 

" (The work referred to appears to 
be Meric Casaubon’s Vindicatio Patris, 
&c.—See Wood’s Athena, s. n. Casau- 
bon (Meric,) vol. iii. col. 936; and 
conf. Bayle’s Dictionary, ed. Lond. 
1736, p. 125, note e.-—The history of 
this matter is as follows. A book was 
supposititiously published in the year 





LETTER TO CASAUBON. 


485 


cupit enim Episcopus, ut simul imprimatur cum alter’ illa 
Tervallii versione Gallica®, quae cum duabus novis epistolis, 
una Principi, alia reformatis Galliz Ecclesiis inscribenda, hoc 


est, cum omnibus suis paramentis, proditura est. 


Ego vero 


nudam libri versionem tui nominis splendore satis ornatam 
omissurus sum, ni forte illud appendicis loco adjecero, quod 
nuper mihi videre contigit, librum illum Gallicum?, (quid 


1624, under the following title: ‘‘ The 
Original of Idolatries ; a true, sincere, 
and exact description of all such sacred 
signs, sacrifices, and sacraments, as 
have been instituted and ordained of 
God since Adam; with the true source 
and lively anatomy of the sacrifice of 
the mass: first faithfully gathered out 
of sundry Greek and Latin authors, as 
also out of divers learned fathers, by 
that famous and learned Isaac Casaubon, 
and by him published in French for 
the good of God’s Church: and now 
translated into English for the benefit 
of this monarchy, by Abraham Darcie, 
London ; printed by authority for Na- 
thaniel Butler, anno Dom. 1624.’? This 
book was dedicated to the Prince 
Charles, (afterwards King Charles I.) 
and presented to King James, and all 
the Lords of the Council, under the 
authority of Isaac Casaubon’s name, 
when he had been dead about ten 
years. The fraud gave occasion for 
Meric Casaubon’s Vindicatio Patris ; 
which was soon after, by the king’s 
command, ‘‘ translated into French and 
English; as Mer. Casaubon himself 
informs us, (in his treatise “Οὗ the 
Necessity of Reformation,” &c., Lond. 
1664, p. 159.) Describing the ‘ Ori- 
ginal of Idolatries,’ he there says, (at 
p- 157,) “The chief end and object 
of the book, I found, was to prove that 
the Mass, (a word of great extent and 
antiquity, which made the authors of 
the Augustan Confession, subscribed 
by Calvin, say, Falso accusantur Eccle- 
sie nostre, quod missam aboleant : reti- 
netur enim missa apud nos, et summa 
reverentid celebratur :) or rather indeed 
the whole liturgy, ancient and late, and 
every part of it, was derived from the 
ancient heathens, Numa Pompilius, 
and I know not whom; some part also 
taken out of the Alcoran: which to 
prove, his authors for the most are 
some late collectors of Roman antiqui- 
ties, as Blondus, Alexander ab Alexan- 
dro, and the like; who say no such 
thing: but, from what they say of the 
Romans, he makes his inferences and 


applications, as he list himself, more 
like the dreams of a distempered man, 
than the words of a man endowed with 
ordinary sense and reason.’’ By and 
by, Casaubon informs us, (p. 159,) “a 
French book, the original of the Eng- 
lish translation,” was produced, when, 
(he says) it was ‘‘ found out, that an old 
title-page had been by art and cunning 
transformed, the years altered, and the 
name of Isaac Casaubon inserted, and 
thus the world for mere gain and Jucre 
(for I do not believe, that there was any 
further mystery in it at the first,) 
shamefully abused. Other editions, or 
copies, of the same book were found, 
and shewed to the king, yea, transla- 
tions of it, that had been made, when 
my father was yet scarce born.’’ ‘ For 
all this,” (he presently adds,) ‘‘ some 
years after, the same book, or English 
translation, was again (we may guess 
by whose procurement) reprinted,’”’ (at 
Amsterdam ?) 1630. | 

° [ There are copies of both the French 
and the English translation of the Vin- 
dicatio in the Brit. Mus., as well as of 
the original Latin, all published in 4to., 
London, A.D. 1624. In the Latin and 
English editions a dedicatory epistle to 
Prince Charles is found, written by Mer. 
Casaubon himself. This, in the Eng- 
lish version, is preceded by another de- 
dicatory epistle, written also by Casau- 
bon, “Τὸ the most high and potent 
monarch, James, by the grace of God, 
king of Great Britain, France, and 
Ireland, defender of the Faith,’’ &c. 
The French version contains the latter 
of these only, i. e. Casaubon’s dedicatory 
epistle ‘ Au Roy.’”’ Before this, how- 
ever, is placed a dedicatory epistle of 
the translator's own, addressed to Prince 
Charles, and signed “ L. L.D.T. P. A.” 
There is no epistle addressed to the 
French Protestant Churches, nor any 
appendix, published with these versions, } 

p [That is, “ The Original of Idola- 
tries,’ the work of which an English 
translation was sent out under Isaac 
Casaubon’s name. } 


480 LETTER TO CASAUBON. 


librum dico? profiuvium illud Lemanicum e turbidis Catha- 
rorum et Novatianorum fontibus eductum,) impressum fuisse 
(absque loci alicujus aut typographi nomine) anno 1561, 
tertio scilicet, ni fallor, ante natum Casaubonum, de qua re 
sat erit monuisse lectorem. O rumorem audacem, qui egregii 
illus de visibilitate operis promulgatorem‘ in carcerem con- 
jecit ! Immo securus vivit, et domi 5101 plaudit, quod librum 
tam venalem nactus aliquando fuisset. [lh interim carcerem 
timere poterunt, qui contra vel hiscere ausi fuerint. Censura 
de lucubratione tui a quibusdam lata sane eos decet, quos 
lacus Genevensis inebriavit. Verum quis non ex animo 
doleat, ad eas nunc augustias redactam esse rem Christi- 
anam, ut antiquitatis esse assertorem contra profanas nova- 
torum opiniones piaculum sit nullo pretio redimendum ? 
Quod si Czsaris animum nobis non despondisset Deus, jam- 
diu de veteris Ecclesiz facie et nobis omnibus actum fuisset. 
Quin videre videor periculum—sed reprimo me. Illud tamen 
impatienter addo, transfigurasse se Satanam in Angelum 
lucis, et sub nescio cujus pietatis fuco grassari in publicam 
concordiam, quam unice amat Deus, quamque ego ardentis- 
simis semper votis ab Ho, qui Autor pacis et concordiz est, 
exposcam. ‘Tu fac rem prope animum, quam frementibus 
Puritanis dotes tus pollicentur. Vale. Et ad carissimum 
Carolum Lemerayer defer amores meos. Quod si rescribas, 
forsan majorem mihi scribendi facultatem exemplum tuum 
adferat, quam hactenus proprium meum ingenium conces- 
serit. Iterum vale, et me amat. 


Lond., ex ede Dunelmensi, Martii 4°. 1623. 


4 [See Meric Casaub., ‘ Of the Neces- 


their calumnies and misrepresentation, 
sity of Reformation,’ pp. 158, 159.— 


had set on the king against a godly 


Certain it is, that some were put to it 
to make their peace, whom the king 
apprehended accessories by their ne- 
glect, or the neglect of those whom 
they trusted; and suddenly after Na- 
thaniel Butler, the bookseller, and 
Abraham Darcy, the translator, were 
committed. This Darcy was a man of 
very bad life generally, &c. . . . Upon 
this, the noise was all London over, 
(and I suppose it went further,) that 
the popish Bishops at the court, by 


book, and some godly men by whose 
means it had been published. I am 
very sure, that liberal supplies of money 
were sent from some that were very 
near the king to the translator, whilst 
he was in prison: who, (some others 
having, at last, with much importunity 
mitigated the king to his enlargement,) 
thereby, instead of punishment, made a 
benefit of his imprisonment. | 

τ [No signature ; but the letter writ- 
ten in Cosin’s hand. ] 





LETTER TO GROTIUS. 


[ Preserved at p. 659 of the folio edition of the collection of Remonstrant Letters, 
entitled “ Prastantium ac Eruditorum Virorum Epistole Ecclesiastice et 
Theologice,”’ Amstel. 1684, Ep. eecxev.] 


HUGONI GROTIO JOANNES COSIN S. P. 


TLLUSTRISSIME VIR, 

Satis me dominatio tua noverit, si semel reverendissimum 
illum Presulem Overalium, nunc clo receptum, nomina- De Epi- 
vero: cul ego, ex quo ad episcopale munus revocatus fue- Greate 
rat, usque ad excessum, secretari loco? inserviendi felici- ejus obitu, 
tatem habui. Infelicissimo nuper fato ereptus est nobis, ee 
peculiariter autem mihi, non minus quam tibi, domine 
clarissime, incomparabilis Presul: quod sane crudo adhuc 
dolore et anxietate commemoro. Heu quantum evi nostri 
Catharis et Jesuitis gaudium! quanta vero tristitii piis om- 
nibus et bonis! Tibi autem, domine, peculiariter ereptum 
dico, quia supra exteros omnes carissimus ejus in te erat 
affectus et amor insolitus: que res nulli melius quam mihi 
nota fuit. Spe eum privaté apud me conquestione infor- 
tunium tuum, simul et reipublice vestrz, deflentem audivi, 
quod inter eos viveres, qui te et tuum pacis ac veritatis 
Christiane studium estimare satis nescirent, homines par- 
tium studio nimis abrepti. Sane quamprimum gravem il- 
lam incumbere reipublice vestrz procellam, atque in tuam 
precipue dominationem inter alios vim suam effundere in- 
tellexerit, statim solitudini se dedit, quo eam tecum commu- 
nem haberet, et postea non levem ob acerbitatem fati tui 
mocerorem quotidie expressit. Mox in gravem incidit mor- 
bum, atque ei tandem lethalem ; et nescio equidem, an mag- 
nam illius egritudinis causam dicerem inusitatum illum 
dolorem, quem ex molestiarum tuarum, que cum vite peri- 
culo conjunctze essent, auditu contraxerat. Szpissime au- 
tem ardentes ad Deum preces et vota pro {πᾶ preestantid 
effundens, tandem quievit in Domino, qui seculum istud 
malum tanti boni possessione indignum judicavit. Mo- 
riens vero secretissime fidei et curee mez missum ad eum 


P [See Conference with Spalato, supr. p. 470.] 


488 LETTER TO GROTIUS. 


a te librum4, illum quem ‘ De imperio summarum potestatum 
circa sacra’ inscripseras, commisit; simul imperans, ut, si 
quando benignus Deus te a solitudine illa et periculis im- 
minentibus liberaret, eum ad dominationem tuam quam 
secretissime et tutissime mittendum curarem. Tandem beavit 
nos, quam ayide expectabamus, fama, liberatum te scilicet ab 
ingraté illA custodid, et non sine divina providentii Lute- 
tiam evasisse’. Ego, dum literas tibi mittendas meditabar, et 
de fidissimo nuntio sollicitus eram, ecce a Reverendissimo 
Patre Domino Wintoniensi Episcopo® audivi missum hue a 
te intimum et fidelissimum amicum, ut per eum liber ille ad 
dominationem tuam rediret. Gratulabar illico opportunita- 
tem tam feliciter oblatam, et statim ad illustrissimum Pre- 
sulem librum tuum una cum hisce literis tibi tradendum 
mittebam. Prestantiam tuam oro, et per intimum illud in 
defuncti mei domini erga te affectum, perque omnia te sacra 
obtestor, ut perpetuum istud ingenii et doctrine tue monu- 
mentum publici juris quamprimum facias, (quod sane mortuus 
p. m. Presul precipue habuit in votis, que tibi etiam nota 
esse voluit;) et liber, quem privatum et manuscriptum mitto, 
rursus ad me novi formi redeat in commune bonum et 
nominis tui celebritatem excusus. Rogo insuper domina- 
tionem tuam, et obnixe precor, ut me per literas certiorem 
facias de libri istius salvo ad manus tuas adventu: quod cum 
intellexero, iberavi animam meam et fidem m eum finem 
prestitam. Semper autem vestigia defuncti domini pre- 
mens, animum ture dignitatis impensissime studiosum retine- 
bo, Deumque immortalem quotidie venerabor, ut pristinam 
tuam felicitatem perfectam esse velit, et majorem tanquam 
solie nubibus erumpenti splendorem et gloriam ad reipublice 
et Ecclesize commodum, bonorum omnium gaudium, conce- 
deret. Vale, clarissime domine, et vel mortui Patroni gra- 
tii me alias ignotum ama. Virtutum tuarum cultor, et 
dominationi tuze deditissimus, 


J. COSIN. 
Cantab. e Collegio de Gonevile 
et Cajus, Junti 20, 1621. 


4 [Published in 8°. Par. 1647; and τ [Grotius’ remarkable escape oc- 
again, ‘cum notis Dav. Blondelli,’ 8°. curred March 22, 1621: he arrived at 
Par. 1648; also, inter Op. Theol. Hu- Paris, April 5th, in the same year. | 
gonis Grotii, ed. Amstel. 1679, tom. 111. s [L. Andrewes. | 
p- 201, et seq. | 





BISHOP COZENS’S ARGUMENT, 


PROVING THAT 


ADULTERY WORKS A DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE: 


BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF SEVERAL OF BISHOP COZENS’S 
SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON THE DEBATE OF 


THE LORD ROSS’S CASE': 


TAKEN FROM ORIGINAL PAPERS WRIT IN THE BISHOP'S 
OWN HAND. 


Tue question is indefinitely to be spoken of, whether a 
man being divorced from his wife, who hath committed adul- 
tery, and is convicted of it, may marry himself to another 
wife or no, during the life of her which is divorced. 

The place in S. Matthew the 5th, repeated again S. Mat- 


thew the 19th, has great perspicuity. 


If it be not lawful for 


any man to put away his wife and marry again, except it be 
in the case of fornication, (for the displacing the words by 
putting the exception before the marriage cannot alter the 


Ἢ [It has been thought best to print 
this paper, as found in a pamphlet 
bearing the above title, but without 
either place or date.—See Parliament- 
ary History of England, 1669, 70, Mar. 
28, vol. iv. p. 447.—Conf. the following 
entry and note in Evelyn’s Diary, ed. 
Lond. 1819, i. p. 425.—“ 1670, Mar. 
22. I went to Westminster, where in 
the House of Lords I saw his majesty 
sit on his throne, but without his robes, 
all the peers sitting with their hats on; 
the business of the day being the divorce 
of my lord Rosse. Such an occasion 
and sight had not been seen in England 
since the time of Hen. VIII.* 

* “© When there was a project, 1669, 
for getting a divorce for the king, to 
facilitate it, there was brought into the 
House of Lords a bill for dissolving the 
marriage of Lord Rosse, on account of 


adultery, and to give him leave to marry 
again. This bill, after great debates, 
passed by the plurality of only two 
votes, and that by the great industry 
of the Lord’s friends, as well as the 
Duke’s enemies, who carried it on 
chiefly in hopes it might bea precedent, 
and inducement for the king to enter 
the more easily into their late propo- 
sals; nor were they a little encouraged 
therein, when they saw the king coun- 
tenance and drive on the bill in Lord 
Rosse’s favour. Of eighteen Bishops 
that were in the House, only two voted 
for the bill, of which one voted through 
age, and one was reputed a Socinian.” 
These in a note are said to be Dr. Cosin. 
Bishop of Durham, and Dr. Wilkins, 
Bishop of Chester.—To these Bishop 
Reynolds is added, in the Parliament- 
ary History, ubi supr. ] 


490 ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 


sense,) then, a contrario, it must of necessity follow, that, if 
the wife be put away for fornication, the husband by the 
tenor of Christ’s words is left free to marry again; which 
freedom is not allowed the adulteress herself, nor to any man 
else that shali marry her. 

S. Mark and 8. Luke have been opposed to 8. Matthew; 
and it has been said that Christ’s words in 8. Matthew did 
not properly belong to Christ’s disciples, or the Christian 
Church, as the words in 8. Mark and S. Luke, which are 
absolute, do; which is a saying that neither I, nor, 1 think, 
nobedy else ever heard of before: for Christ’s Sermon in the 
Mount was spoken to His disciples, and especially belonged 
to Christians. 

It is clear they are spoken to His disciples ; for He says to 
them, that they are the salt of the earth, and the light of the 
world, and that they are blessed when they suffer persecution 
for His Name’s sake, which no man will say or apply to the 
Jews. 

It is true that, in the 19th chapter of S. Matthew, Christ 
answers the Scribes and Pharisees who came to tempt Him 
with their question, whether it was lawful for a man to put 
away his wife for any cause, as they said Moses had permitted 
them to do. But the answer that Christ gave them, that it 
was not lawful, but only in the case of adultery, for men to 
put away their wives and to marry another, was a rule which 
concerned all Christians to observe for ever after, and for 
that reason was recorded by S. Matthew. 

The words in S. Mark and S. Luke are not to be taken 
absolutely, but to be supplied and understood by his words in 
S. Matthew, as in many other cases is clear; viz. the thief 
upon the cross, Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, &c.; whereof many instances may be 
brought, as the destruction of Nineveh, &c. 

But, for Christ’s words, the exception confirms the rule, 
and infers a concession, that, in the case of fornication, the 
putting away one wife and marrying another is allowed. It 
is alike with divers other his exceptions, which are found in 
Scripture: for brevity I will instance in this one, (viz.) 
“Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Upon 
which text if I or any Bishop else were to preach, I believe 


ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 491 


we should not discharge our duty, unless we should tell the 
people, that, if by the Grace of God they did repent, they 
should not perish. 

The exception here, εἰ μὴ, nisi, unless, is parallel with 
1 Kings iii. 18. “None were in the house, except we twain :” 
they two therefore were, others were not. 

Such exceptions, proceeding from natural equity, are tacitly 
implied in laws, though pronounced in general terms. 

But, as to the exception here, the words are not capable of 
any other sense than as I have observed; for, except that 
restraint be referred to marrying again, the sense would run 
thus, ‘ Whoever puts away his wife commits adultery τ᾿ which 
stands not with truth or reason, since it is not the dismission 
that is adulterous, but the marriage of another. It is, there- 
fore, the plain drift of our Saviour to teach the Pharisee, that 
the marriage of a second wife after a dismission of a former, 
upon any other cause except for fornication, is no less than 
adultery; thereby inferring, that, upon a just dismission for 
fornication, a second marriage cannot be branded with adul- 
tery. 

Besides, the Pharisee’s question, “ Is it lawful for a man to 
put away his wife for every cause?” was not without a plain 
implication of liberty to marry another ; which our Saviour 
well knowing, gives a full answer, as well to what he meant, 
as what he said: which had not been perfectly satisfactory, if 
He had only determined that one part concerning dismission, 
and not the other concerning marriage: which clause if two 
Evangelists express not, yet it must be fetched necessarily 

-from the third, since it is a sure and irrefragable rule, that 
all four Evangelists make up one perfect Gospel. 

The Rheimists and college of Douay* urge for the popish 
doctrine, Rom. vii. 2: “The woman which hath an husband 
is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth.” 
But, 

1. This place is to be expounded by Christ’s words. 

2. S. Paul hath no occasion here to speak of divorce, 


® (Vid. Annot. in S. Matth. xix.9— by the English College then resident at 
‘The New Testament of Jesus Christ Rheims, set forth the second time by 
faithfully translated into English, &c., the same College now returned to 
with arguments of books and chapters, Douay,’ ed. Anty. 1630, p. 55.—Conf. 
annotations, and other helps, &c.,. .. ποῖ, marg. in Rom. vii. 2; ibid., p. 897. ] 


492 ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 


but of marriage whole and sound, as it stands by God’s 
ordinance. 

3. He speaks of a woman who is under an husband: so is 
not she that is divorced from him. 

4. S. Paul useth this to his purpose of the law being dead, 
to which we are not bound. 

Nor is their doctrine more favoured by 1 Cor. vu. 10. “ Let 
not the woman depart,” as being in her choice whether she 
would depart or not. But in the case of fornication she was 
to depart, or rather be put away, whether she would or not. 

The bond of the marriage is to be inquired into, what it 
properly is. Being a conjugal promise, solemnly made be- 
tween a man and his wife, that each of them will live toge- 
ther, according to God’s holy ordinance, notwithstanding 
poverty or infirmity, or such other things as may hap- 
pen during their lives, separation from bed and board, 
which is part of their promise so to live together, doth 
plainly break that part of the bond, whereby they are 
tied to live together both as to bed and to board. The 
distinction betwixt bed and board and the bond is new, 
never mentioned in the Scripture, and unknown in the 
ancient Church, devised enly by the canonists and the 
schoolmen in the Latin Church (for the Greek Church 
knows it not) to serve the Pope’s turn the better, till 
he got it established in the council of Trent; at which 
time, and never before, he laid his enathema upon all 
them that were of another mind, forbidding all men to 
marry, and not to make any use of Christ’s concession. | 

Bed and board, or cohabitation, belong to the essence 
and substance of matrimony; which made Erasmus* and 
Bishop Hall4 say, that the distinction of those two from 
the bond is merely chimerical, and fancy. 

The promise of constancy and mutual forbearance, if it 
hinders divorce as to the bond, hinders it also as to bed and 
board; because the same bed and the same table were pro- 
mised in the marriage contract: but the promise does not 


: : sth : . 
> [Cone, Trid. sess. xxiv. De sacra- _rimitur domestica consuetudo, manente 
mento Matrimonii, can. vii— Labbe, conjugii vinculo, quis unquam veterum, 


tom. xiv. col. 875. ] vel theologorum, vel jureconsultorum, 
“14. Comm. in 1 Cor. vii. 42.— appellavit divortium 3] 
Desid. Erasmi op., ed. Lugd. Batav. 4 [Cases of Conscience, Decade iv. 


1705, tom. vi. col. 697.—Nam, quod case 3.—Works, ed. 1837, vol. vii. p. 
nos interpretamur diyortium, quum di- 473. 





ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE, 


493 


extend even to tolerating adultery, or malicious desertion, 

which according to God’s ordinance dissolves the marriage. 
Our Saviour speaks of divorces instituted by the Mosaical 

law; but they were no other than divorces from the bond. 
The form of the bill of divorce among the Jews® was this : 


“ Be expelled from me, and free for any body else.” 


To give 


the bill of divorce is from the Hebrew root ΠῚ, which is to 


break or cut off the marriage. 


With this agree the ancient 


Canons, Councils, and Fathers of the Church. 
Concil. Neocesar£, et Elib.2, forbid the retaining an adul- 


terous wife. Concil. Eliber.® 


tions!, Tertullian™ 


, Aurelian.i, et Arelatens.*, give 
liberty in such case to marry again. 


Clemens’ Constitu- 


S. Basil" in his canons, approved by a 


General Council, are for marrying again. Concil. Venet..—lIf 


e (Conf. Hammond, Of Divorces, 
sect. 27.—Works, ed. Lond. 1674, tom. 
i. Ρ. 453. ] 

f [ Vid. can. viii—Labbe, tom. i. col. 
1481.—yurn Tivos μοιχευθεῖσα λαϊκοῦ 
ὄντος, ἐὰν ἐλεγχθῇ φανερῶς, ὃ τοιοῦτος 
εἰς ὑπηρεσίαν ἐλθεῖν οὐ δύναται. ἐὰν δὲ 
καὶ μετὰ τὴν χειροτονίαν μοιχευθῇ, 
ὀφείλει ἀπολῦσαι αὐτὴν. ἐὰν δὲ συζῆ, 
ov δύναται ἔχεσθαι τῆς ἐγχειρισθείσης 
αὐτῷ ὑπηρεσίας. 

s [Ὑ1ἀ. can. lxv.—Ibid., tom. i. col. 
977.—Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit mee- 
chata, et scierit eam maritus suus mee- 
chari, et non eam statim projecerit 
nec in fine accipiat communionem, &c. 
—lItem, can. |xx. col. 978.—Si, cum 
conscientia mariti, uxor fuerit moecha- 
ta, placuit nee in fine dandam esse 
communionem: si vero eam reliquerit, 
post decem annos accipiat commu- 
nionem. | 

» (Vid. can. x., ibid. col. 971.—Si 
ea, quam ee cieenencs reliquit, dux- 
erit maritum, potest ad fontem lavacri 
admitti. Hoc et circa feminas cate- 
chumenas erit observandum. Quod 
si fuerit fidelis, quae ducitur ab eo qui 
uxorem inculpatam reliquit, et cum 
scierit illum habere uxorem, quam sine 
causa reliquit, placuit huic nec in fine(m 
[om.]) dandam esse communionem.— 
Conf. ean. viil., col. 971.—Item feminze 
que, nulla przcedente causa, relique- 
rint viros suos, et se copulaverint al- 
teris, nec in fine accipiant commu- 
nionem. | 

i [Vid. Cone. Aurel. I., can. xiiii— 
Labbe, tom. iv. col. 1407.—Si se cui- 
cunque mulier duplici conjugio pres- 


byteri vel diaconi relicta conjunxerit, 
aut castigati separentur, aut certe, si 
in criminum intentione perstiterint, 
pari excommunione  plectantur.—In 
this, as in notes h and k, there appears 
to be some mistake. Itis possible that 
Cosin’s argument in citing these Coun- 
cils may have been misconceived by the 
editor of the pamphlet. ] 

k (Vid. can. x.—Labbe, tom. i. col. 
1428.—De his, qui conjuges suas in 
adulterio deprehendunt, et iidem sunt 
adolescentes fideles, et prohibentur nu- 
bere, placuit ut in quantum possit con- 
silium eis detur, ne, viventibus uxori- 
bus suis, licet adulteris, alias acci- 
piant. | 

! [Constit. Apost., lib. vi. cap. xvil. 
—Patres Apost., ed. Coteler., Amstel. 
1724, tom. i. p. 350. j 

m [Tertull. adv. Marcion., lib. iv. cap. 
xxxiv.—Op., ed. Rigalt. Lut. Par. 
1664, pp. 449, 450.—Illicite dimissam 
pro indimissA ducens, adulter est. Ma- 
net enim matrimonium quod non rite 
direptum est. Manente matrimonio, 
nubere adulterium est. Ita, si condi- 
tionaliter prohibuit dimittere uxorem, 
non in totum prohibuit; et quod non 
prohibuit in totum, permisit alias, ubi 
causa cessat ob quam prohibuit.... 
Habet itaque et Christum assertorem 
justitia divortii—Conf. etiam lib. de 
Monogamia, cap. ix. p. 530. } 

2 (S. Basil., Ep. clxxxviiil., ad Am- 
philoch. de Canonibus i., can. ix.— 
= ed. Ben. Par. 1730, tom. iii. p. 

273; item, Ep. excix., ad Ampbhil. de 
Can. ii., can. 37, 48, pp. 295, 297. ) 

° [ Cone. Venet. can. ii— Labbe, tom. 


494 ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 


they marry in any other case than fornication, they are to 
be excommunicated, and not otherwise. Concil. Wormat.? gives 
liberty to the innocent party to marry after divorce. Concil. 
Lateran.4 gives leave for the innocent party after a year to 
marry again. 

Concil. Lateran.~—If any one take another wife while a suit 
is depending, and afterwards there be a divorce between him 
and the first, he may remain with the second. 

Lactantius‘,S. Hierome‘, and Epiphanius?, are for allowance 
of marriage after divorce. Chrysostom, Hom. xix. 1 Cor. vi..*, 
says, that “the marriage is dissolved by adultery; and that 
the husband, after he hath put her away, is no longer her 


husband.” 


Theophylact on S. Luke xvi.¥ says, that 8. Luke must be 


interpreted by S. Matthew. 


iv. col. 1055.—Eos quoque, qui relictis 
uxoribus suis, sicut in Evangelio dici- 
tur, excepta causa fornicationis, sine 
adulterii probatione, alias duxerint, 
statuimus a communione similiter ar- 
cendos; &c. | 

P {Cone. Wormat. sub Hadriano Pa- 
pa 11., can. xxxiiii—Labbe, tom. viii. 
col. 952.—Item, can. lxiii., col. 956. | 

qa [Vid. Cone. Lateran. III. sub 
Alexandro Papa IIT., append. par. ult. 
cap. xlvii—Labbe, tom. x. col. 1727.— 
Item ex concilio habito apud Wormatiam, 
cap. 4.—Mulieres vero, cum separate 
fuerint pro hae vel alia licita causa a 
propriis viris,.... post expletum an- 
num accipiant alium virum, si volu- 
erint: similiter et vir uxorem. | 

* (Cone. Lateran. III., Append. 
cap. xxi.—Labbe, tom. x. col. 1579.— 
Quia villicum et mulierem quam su- 
perinduxerat, pendente lite prioris ux- 
oris, Invicem asseris consentire,... 
nos auctoritate presentium tuz solici- 
tudini respondemus, quod .. . in mari- 
tali copula poterunt remanere. | 

‘{Lactant. Firmian. Institut. Di- 
vin., lib. vi. De vero cultu, cap. 23.— 
Op., ed. Basil. 1563, p. 377.—Addan- 
tur illa,... adulterum esse, qui marito 
dimissam duxerit, et eum qui, preter 
crimen adulterii, uxorem dimiserit, ut 
alteram ducat. ] 

ΓΒ. Hier, Comm. in 5. Matth. 
xix. 9. (lib. iii.) —Op., ed. Vallars. tom. 
vii. p. 146.—Ubiquumque est igitur 
fornicatio, et fornicationis suspicio, li- 
bere uxor dimittitur. Et, quia poterat 


S. Hilary” is for marrying again, 


accidere, ut aliquis calumniam faceret 
innocenti, et, ob secundam copulam 
nuptiarum, veteri crimen impingeret, 
sic priorem dimittere jubetur uxorem, 
ut secundam, prima vivente, non ha- 
beat.—? | 

u [Epiphanii Her. lix. ὃ 4.—Op., 
ed. Par. 1622. tom. i. p. 497.—6 δὲ μὴ 
δυνηθεὶς TH μιᾷ ἀρχεσθῆναι τελευτη- 
σάσῃ, ἕνεκέν τινος προφάσεως, πορνείας, 
ἢ μοιχείας, ἢ κακῆς αἰτίας χωρισμοῦ 
γενομένου, συναφθέντα δευτέρᾳ γυναικὶ, 
ἢ γυνὴ δευτέρῳ ἀνδρὶ, οὐκ αἰτιᾶται 6 
θεῖος λόγος, οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας 
καὶ τῆς ζωῆς ἀποκηρύττει, ἀλλὰ δια- 
βαστάζει διὰ τὸ ἀσθενὲς, οὐκ ἵνα δύο 
γυναῖκας ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ σχῇ ἔτι περιούσης 
τῆς μιᾶς, ἀλλ᾽, ἀπὸ μιᾶς ἀποσχεθεὶς, 
δευτέρα, εἰ τύχοιεν, νόμω συναφθῆναι, 
κιτ.λ. 

x [S. Joh. Chrysost., Hom. xix. in 
illud: ‘* Mulier alligata est legi,” &c., 
de libello repudii, § 3.—Op., ed. Ben., 
tom. 111. p. 207,---οὐδὲ ἐκείνου, οὔτε 
αὐτοῦ, δικαίως ἄν τις τὴν τοιαύτην 
προσείποι. ἢ γὰρ μοιχαλὶς οὐδενός ἐστι 
γυνή. καὶ γὰρ τὰς πρὸς ἐκεῖνον συνθή- 
Kas ἐπάτησε, K.T-A. | 

y [Theophylacti, Archiep. Belgar., 
Comm. in S. Luc. Evang. cap. xvi., ed. 
Lut. Par. 1631, p. 457.—kaipbs yap 
ἣν τῆς τοιαύτης νομοθεσίας τότε" νυνὶ 
δὲ ἄλλης τελειοτέρας διδασκαλίας δεῖ" 
διὸ καὶ φημὶ, πᾶς 6 ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα 
αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγον πορνείας δηλαδὴ, 
καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν, μοιχεύει, κιτ.λ. (Matt. 
xix.) ] 

2 [S. Hilar., Pictay. Episc., Comm. 


ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 


as Dr. Fulk® saith on 5. Matthew v. 
in the council of Florence”, are for marrying again. 


495 


The Eastern Bishops, 
Justin 


Martyr® speaks of a Christian woman’s giving a bill of divorce 
to a dissolute husband, without finding any fault with it. 

S. Ambrose? says, “a man may marry again, if he put away 
an adulterous wife.” Theodoret® said of a wife, who violated 
the laws of marriage: “Therefore (the Lord) requires the 
bond or tie of marriage to be dissolved.” 


All the Greek Church‘ to this day allow it. 


Erasmus, 


Cajetan", and other papists, the civil lawi, and the laws of 
the Emperor*, are clear for it: and the constitutions of our 


in S. Matth. v. 31; cap. iv. §22.—Op., 
ed. Ben. Par. 1693, col. 627.—Dic- 
tum est autem, Quicunque dimiserit 
uxorem suam, det illi repudium, &c. 
.». Cum lex libertatem dandi repudii 
ex libelli auctoritate tribuisset, nunc 
marito fides Evangelica non solum vo- 
luntatem pacis indixit, verum etiam 
reatum coactz in adulteriam uxoris 
imposuit, sialii ex discessionis necessi- 
tate nubenda sit: nullam aliam causam 
desinendi a conjugio preescribens, quam 
quz virum prostitute uxoris societate 
pollueret. } 

a [ Vid. ‘ The Text of the New Testa- 
ment of Jesus Christ, translated out of 
the vulgar Latin by the Seminarie at 
Rhemes, &c.; whereunto is added the 
translation out of the original Greeke, 
commonly used in the Church of Eng- 
land, &c.;’ by W.Fulke, D.D.,ed.Lond. 
1633, page 17.—Annot. in S. Matt. 
v.33.—The knot of marriage is broken, 
&c.... Of marrying after divorce, S. 
Augustin ... is doubtful: ... but S. 
Hilary maketh no question, but that 
through adultery the marriage ceaseth, 
- and is dissolved. } 

» [Definit. Cone. Florent. erga fin., 
Latinorum quest. ‘ Et quare conjugia 
dirimitis,’ &c.—Labbe, tom, xiii. col. 
523, et seq.—Item, ὃ Przsules ita re- 
sponderunt, col. 527, 528.—ra συνοι- 
κέσια ἡμῶν οὔκ ἀλόγως xwploovra. | 

© (S. Justini Martyris Apol. ii. § 2. 
—Op., ed. Par. 1742, p. 89. ] 

4 [Comm. in 1 Cor, vii. 11.—S. 
Ambr. op., ed. Ben. Par. 1690, tom. ii. 
Append. col. 133.—Viro licet ducere 
uxorem, si dimiserit uxorem peccan- 
tem. ] 

e [Serm. ix. de Legibus, prope finem. 
—Op., ed. Lut. Par. 1642, tom. iv. p. 
620.—ei δὲ τοῦ γάμου παραλύσοι τοὺς 
νόμους, καὶ πρὸς ἕτερον ἴδοι, τηνικαῦτα 


λύειν κελεύει τὴν ζεύγλην.] 

f [ Vid. supr., not b. ] 

8. [Comm. in 1 Cor. vii. 42.—Erasmi 
op., ed. Lugd. Batav. 1705, tom. vi. 
col. 699, 700.— Atqui primum Evan- 
gelium non vetat iterare matrimonium, 
ubi jure dimiseris uxorem. De Pauli 
verbis mox loquemur...... Liquet 
Paulum hic non exclusisse divortium, 
quod ipsa Lex palam indulget, cujus 
adducit testimonium, &c. } 

h [Thom. de Vio Cajetan. in Matt. 
xix. 9.—Comment. in S. Scripturis, ed. 
Lugd. 1639, tom. iv. p. 86.—Quid 
autem sit de dimittente uxorem forni- 
eariam, et aliam ducente, textus iste 
nihil dicit. ... Si instes, illud diversum 
nihil aliud esse nisi quod propter forni- 
cationem dimittens uxorem et aliam 
ducens non mechatur, respondeo sic 
sonare textum secundum planum literze 
sensum: sed, quoniam non audeo op- 
ponere me contra torrentem doctorum, 
et judiciorum ecclesiasticorum, ideo 
dixi textum nihil disponere de dimit- 
tente fornicariam. Intelligo igitur, ex 
hae Domini Jesu Christi lege, licitum 
esse Christiano dimittere uxorem ob 
fornicationem carnalem ipsius uxoris, 
et posse ducere aliam uxorem, salva 
semper Ecclesiz definitione, que hac- 
tenus non apparet, &c. | 

* [ Vid. Digest., lib. xxiv. tit. ii. ο. 1.— 
Corpus Juris Civilis, ed. Colon. Allobr. 
1624, col. 770.—Dirimitur matrimo- 
nium divortio, morte, captivitate, vel 
alia contingente servitute utrius eorum. 
—Item, Codicis Justiniani lib. v. tit. 
xvii. c. 8, ὃ 3; ed. Colon. Allobr. 1624, 
col. 457.—Vir quoque pari fine clau- 
detur, nec licebit ei sine causis apertius 
designatis propriam repudiare jugalem: 
nec ullo modo expellat nisi adulteram, 
vel venificam, &c.] 

* [Codicis Theodosiani lib. iii. tit. 


4.96 


own Church of England in the time of Henry VIII.', Edward 
VI.~, and Queen Elizabeth". 

The practice of the English Church. In the Stat. 1 Jac. ὁ. 
11°, against second marriages, divorces are excepted; and in 
Canon 107? it is provided, they shall not marry again: but it 
is not said such marriages are void, only the caution is for- 
feited: neither doth the canon speak of such separations, 
wherein the bond itself is broken, as it is by fornication. 

Even the canon law‘ allows marrying again, in case a 
woman seek her husband’s life, and in case of a bond- 
woman. Gratian’ says, in the case of adultery lawful mar- 
riages ought not to be denied. In the case of an incurable 
leprosy, it was the advice of S. Gregory*® to Austin the monk, 
that he, that could not conta, should rather marry. Bel- 
larminet owns, that the bond of the marriage of infidels is dis- 
solvable; but the marriage of the faithful, and of infidels, is 
of the same nature: and Justinian", a jesuit, confesses, that 
it is simply lawful for the innocent party to marry again. 


ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 


xvi., ed. Lugd. 1566. pp. 55, 56.—Item, 
Papiani lib. Respons. tit. xxiil., ibid. 
- 701. ] 

1 [Vid. Reform. Leg. Eccles. ex auc- 
toritate Hen. VIII. et Ed. VL, tit. De 
Adulteris et Divortiis, cap. 5; ed. Lond. 
1641, p. 49.—Conf. 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 
>a. Ni 7H 

τὰ [Vid. 3 and 4 Edw. VI. cap. xi. ] 

n [Vid. Capit. sive Const. Eccles., 
per Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, et reli- 
quum Clerum Cantuariensis Provincia, 
in Synodo inchoata Londini xxv. die 
mensis Oct. ann. Dom. 1597, Eliz. 
XXxix., congregatos, promulg.—Bp. 
Sparrow’s Collection of Articles, &c., 
Lond. 1675, p. 251. ] 

© [2 (vulgo 1) Jacobi I. cap. xi. 
‘An Act to restrain all persons from 
marriage, until their former wives and 
former husbands be dead,’ ὃ iii.—Pro- 
vided also, and be it enacted by the 
authority aforesaid, that this act, nor 
any thing herein contained, shall ex- 
tend to any person or persons, that are 
or shall be at the time of such marriage 
divorced by any sentence had or here- 
after to be had in the Ecclesiastical 
Court; &c.] 

P [A.D. 1603. ] 

9 | Gratiani Decretum, par. 11, caus. 
XXX1. quest. i.c. 6.—Corp. Jur. Can., 
ed. Par. 1612, tom. i. col. 1721.—Si 
qua mulier in mortem mariti sui cum 


aliis conciliata sit, &c.,... vir potest 
(ut nobis videtur) ipsam uxorem di- 
mittere, et, si voluerit, aliam ducere.— 
Item, caus. xxx. q. ii. c. 4, col. 1693. | 

τ (Vid. Decret., par. ii, caus. XXxil. 
4. vii. ὁ. 19; ubi supr. 60]. 1788.— 
Conf. cap. 10. col. 1784. | 

5. [There is manifestly some error in 
this reference. Perhaps in this, as in 
one or two other places, (see p. 492, 
notes h, i, k,) Cosin’s meaning may 
not have been clearly understood by the 
party who prepared this paper for the 
press. | 

t [Bellarm. de Rom. Pont., lib. v. 
cap. vii. ὃ Denique——Op., ed. Ingolst. 
1601, tom. i. col. 1085. ] 

u [Benedicti Justiniani in Rom. vii., 
§ 2.—B. Pauli Apostoli Epist. Expla- 
nat., ed. Lugd. 1612, tom. i. p. 196, 
197.—Nam que suh viro est, &c., art. 
iiii—Preterea (quod magis mirandum 
est) Greecorum consuetudo, que etiam 
nune in lege Evangelica propter foe- 
mine adulterium ita divortium probat, 
ut innocenti fas esse putetur secundum 
inire connubium, quod quidem simpli- 
citer licere plerique canones apud Bur- 
cardum indicare videntur; idque olim 
existimare visus est Pollentius, adver- 
sus quem scribit Augustinus, et, quod 
vix credi potest, non ita pridem duo 
non ignobiles theologi affirmarunt. } 





ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 497 


And the Roman doctors* allow a dissolution of the bond of 
marriage, if the parties should, after consummation’, transfer 
themselves into a friary or nunnery. 

The canons’, which in the case of adultery prohibit marry- 
ing in the lifetime of the guilty person, are contrary to two 
acts of parliament, made 25 H. VIII.* and 8 and 4 Ed. VI.», 
wherein no canons are allowed that be any way repugnant to 
the laws of God, or the Scripture, the king’s prerogative 
royal, and the statutes of this land. Thirty-two persons 
were to review the Canon Law‘, in which review, drawn up by 
Archbishop Cranmer, the innocent person is permitted to 
marry again, according to Christ’s law and concession. 

We have examples of such marriages in H. IV. of France’, 
H. VIII. of England, Lord Mountjoy‘, Lord Rich, Bishop 
Thornborough", and divers others. And it is observable, 
that, in the case of the Marquis of Northampton’, 5 Ed. VL., 
who had been divorced for his lady’s adultery, and married 
another before any Act of Parliament made concerning it, an 
act which passed afterwards (only two spiritual and two tem- 
poral lords dissenting) declares, he had been at liberty by 
the laws of God to marry, and did lawfully marry another ; 
where the act manifestly supposes, that whatever had ob- 
tained for law till that time was void, as being contrary to 


God’s law. 


The most considerable men of the reformed Churches, 


x (Vid. infr. p. 501, note b.] 

y [Vid. Cone. Later. III. cap. iii— 
Labbe, tom. x. col. 1569.—Conf. cap. 1. 
ibid. | 

2 {Decret. par. ii. caus. Xxxii. q. 1. 
ο. 2.—Causa fornicationis vir dimittat 
uxorem, non tamen alteram ducat.— 
col, 1733.—Sic priorem dimittere ju- 
betur uxorem, ut secundam prima vi- 
vente non habeat. | 

* (25 Hen. VIII. cap. xix., § 1 and 
2.—Statutes at Large. ] 

> [3 and 4 Edw. VI. cap. xi.] 

© Ref. Leg. Eccles., tit. De Adul- 
teriis et Divortiis, [cap. v. ed. Lond. 
1641, p. 49.] 

‘(Vid. ‘Memoirs of Henry the 
Great,” Lond. 1824, chap. ii., iii., vol. 
i. pp. 72, 92; item, chap. xvi., xvii., 
vol. 11. pp. 282, 363, δ. 

© (Vid. Hume’s Hist. Engl.—Conf. 
Lingard, Hist. Engl., vol. iv. p. 117, 


COSIN, 


et seq. ] 

! [ Vid. Life of Abp. Laud, by Le 
Bas, chap. i. pp. 10, 11.—Conf. Ra- 
pin’s Hist. Engl., book xix., A.D. 
1628, ed. Lond. 1743, tom. ii. p. 278, 
note 2.] 

" (Dr. John Thornborough, Bp. of 
Limerick in 1593, translated to Bristol 
in 1603, and to Worcester in 1616.— 
See the account of him in Wood's 
Athen. Oxon., vol. iii. col. 5; where 
there is a note on his second marriage, 
taken out of Sir J. Harrington’s ‘ Brief 
View of the State of the Church of 
England.’ | 

i fSee an account of this case in 
Ayliffe’s Parergon Juris Canonici An- 
glicani, tit. Of Divorce, &c. ; ed. Lond. 
1726, pp. 226, 227.—Conf. Journals of 
the House of Lords, ann. 1551, Mar. 7, 
8, 9; vol. i. pp. 408, 409.] 


Kk 


498 ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 


both at home and abroad, are of this opinion. Grotius* quotes 
Tertullian, in whose time it was lawful for the imnocent 
party to marry. 

Lancelot, Inst. Jur. Can.!, acknowledges that divorce is 
a dissolution of the marriage. 

Selden™, who is not likely to contradict the laws of this 
kingdom, maintaineth, that marriage after divorce is to be 
allowed: and, in that particular, Dr. Hammond” doth not 
contradict him, but is clearly for it. 

The opinion of Amesius° deserves to be set down at large. 
“ Marriage,” says he, “cannot be dissolved by men at their 
pleasure, and for that reason, as it is considered simply and 
absolutely, it is rightly said to be indissolvable, . . . . because 
marriage is not only a civil, but a divine conjunction,..... 


* [Grotii Comm. in S. Matt. v. 32. 
—Op., Theol., ed. Amst. 1679, tom. 
ii. p. 54.—Quam sententiam ex boni- 
tate peculiari magis ortam quam ex 
communi receptaque lege, tum ex aliis, 
tum ex Tertulliano apparet, qui non 
uno loco ostendit solitos suo tempore 
ad matrimonium alterum admitti sui 
ob adulterium uxorem dimisissent. ] 

1 [De Divortiis, lib. ii. tit. xvi., ed. 
Colon. 1609, p. 426. ] 

™ (Uxor Hebraica, seu De Nuptiis 
et Divortiis, cap. xxxiil.—Op., ed. 
Lond. 1726, coll. 858, 859. ] 

1 [Of Divorces, sect. 28, 33, 37.— 
Hammond’s Works, ed. Lond. 1674, 
tom. i. pp. 453, 455, 456. ] 

© [Gulielm. Ames., de Conscientia 
et ejus jure vel casibus, lib. v. cap. 38, 
De matrimonii dissolutione, ed. Amst. 
1630, pp. 265, 206.— 

Quest. 1. An et quomodo matrimo- 
nium possit dissolvi? 

I. R. 1. Matrimonium non _ potest 
ab hominibus ex suo arbitrio dissolvi : 
et illa ratione, simpliciter et absolute 
consideratum, recte dicitur insolubile. 
Matt. xix. 9; Rom. vii. 1. 

II. Hoe autem habet matrimonium, 
sive consummatum, sive ratum, supra 
alios contractus, non tantum ex insti- 
tutione Christi, sed ex jure nature. 
Matt.i.9. Ab initio non fuit sic. Ratio 
est, quia matrimonium non tantum est 
civilis, sed etiam divina conjunctio, 
cujus Institutor et Ordinator est Deus 
Ipse. Matt. xix. Quod Deus conjunsit. 
Et illius etiam est nature, ut sine 
gravi detrimento utriusque partis non 
possit dissolvi. 


III. 2. Non ita tamen insolubile est 
matrimonium, quin possit ex causa 
quam Deus Ipse approbat ut justam 
dissolvi. Insolubilitas enim illa non 
instituta fuit in poenam, sed in solatium 
innocentium, et adinittit exceptionem, 
in qua Deus conjungere cessat. Matt. 
xix: 6; 9: 

IV. 3. Nulla justa causa divortii 
faciendi in Scripturis probatur, preter 
adulterium, et similes impuritates ne- 
fandas, quibus fit ut duo non maneant 
una caro, sed divisa, et sic fides con- 
jugii directe violatur. Matt. ν. 32, et 
xix. 9. 

VY. 4. Hine, 1. Matrimonii confir- 
mati dissolvendi justa causa non est 
morbus contagiosus, quamvis conver- 
sationem conjugalem possit impedire, 


Quest. 2. An adulterium admissum 
solummodo usum, vel etiam vinculum 
ipsum, matrimonii solvat ? 

IX. R. 1. Vineulum ipsum solvi 
patet. 1. Quia essentia ipsa contrac- 
tus directe violatur. Contractu autem 
cessante, vinculum contractu nixum 
necessario cessat. 2. Alienum est ab 
omni ratione, ut omnia officia matri- 
monialia in perpetuum tollantur, et 
vinculum tamen vel obligatio ad illa 
officia continuetur. 

X. 3. Verba Domini, Matt. v. 32, 
et xix. 9, nullam habent distinctionem 
aut limitationem dimissionis, sed di- 
missionem in adulterii causa simplici- 
ter et absolute probant :—probant igi- 
tur non dimissionem partialem, aut 
secundum quid, a mensa et toro, sed 
totalem. | 





ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE, 499 


and is also of that nature, that it cannot be dissolved without 
detriment to either party: yet it is not so indissolvable, but it 
may be dissolved for a cause which God approves as just ; for 
the indissolvability was not instituted for a punishment, but 
for the comfort of innocent persons, and it admits an excep- 
tion wherein God ceases to conjoin.. . . . By adultery two are 
made not to remain one flesh. ... Hence it is, that a contagious 
disease is not a cause of dissolving marriage. .... By adultery 
the very essence of the contract is directly violated ; but, the 
contract ceasing, the bond depending on the contract neces- 
sarily ceases. It is against all reason, that all matrimonial 
duties should be for ever taken away, yet the bond or obliga- 
tion to those duties should continue. The words of our 
Lord, Matt. v. 32, and xix. 9, have no distinction or limita- 
tion of the putting away, but simply and absolutely approve 
of putting away: therefore they approve of a putting away, 
not partial, or to a particular purpose, from bed and board, 
but total.” 

None are against the reformed divines, but Dr. Howson ?, 
Mr. Bunny, and Dr. Prideaux". 

Dr. Howson was a professed adversary to Dr. Raynolds, 
who was a great maintainer of the Church of England 
against all the points of popery, and particularly in this. 

Dr. Taylor’, Bishop Hallt, Dr. Fulk *, are for second mar- 
riages; no authors against them but the council of Trent *, 
and those of the Church of Rome, whose credit is only 
saved by those of our Church who agree with them. 


P [Joannis Howsoni lib. cui titulus 
est, ‘ Uxore Dimissa propter Fornica- 
tionem, aliam non licet superindu- 
cere,’ (Tertia Thesis Theol., &c.) ed. 
Oxon. 1606, p. 35, (al. p. 59 edit. 1602, 
Oxon., in marg.)—Necesse est, ut ma- 
trimonium..... individua vite so- 
cietate conjungat, adeo ut, quamvis 
propter adulterium possimus uxores di- 
mittere, nequaquam tamen valeamus 
ad secundas nuptias, tanquam ad no- 
vas voluptates et delicias, transire.— 
(Et passim.) ] 

4 (Edm. Bunny, “Οἵ Divorce for 
Adultery, and Marrying again: that 
there is no sufficient warrant so to do;” 
sect. 34, Conclusion, ed. Oxford, 1610, 
p. 168.—But as touching the main, if 
now we gather the chiefest and princi- 


pal points together, of all that hitherto 
hath been said, what have we (to speak 
of) but only the opinion of divers of the 
learned that way inclining? For the 
truth of the matter, or any certainty 
whereon to ground, what have we else, 
&c. | 

© [Vid. Johan. Prid., Manuduct. ad 
Theol. Polemic. loc. xix. De Matri- 
monio, act. 10, 11, 13, et q. 9, 10; 
ed. 8°. Oxon. 1657, pp. 176, 177, 179, 
182. 

5 (Vid. Ductor. Dubitant., lib. i. 
cap. v. r. 15, n. 6; ed. Lond. 1660, 
tom. i. p. 195.) 

t [Conf. supr., p. 492, note d.] 

u [Vid. supr., p. 495, not. a. ] 

x [Vid. p. 492, note b.] 


Kk2 


500 ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE, 


Upon the difference of explication between S. Ambrose Y, 
Origen’, and S. Austin*, a new kind of divorce has been 
thought of, from bed and board; but this divorce, or 
name of a divorce, was unknown to the Jews and ancient 
Christians. 

I said so much before, at the first and second reading of 
this bill, that 1 was in good hopes to have had no further 
occasion given me of answering any objections against it 
now; but, seemg divers new arguments have been studied 
and framed against it since that time, I shall now endeavour 
to satisfy and clear them all. 

1. The first argument against it is, that the separation 
from bed and board doth not dissolve the bond of marriage. 
To which I must reply, as I did before, that this is a distinc- 
tion without a difference, newly invented by the canonists 
and schoolmen, and never heard of either in the Old or New 
Testament, nor in the times of the ancient Fathers, who ac- 
counted the separation from bed and board to be the disso- 
lution of the bond itself. 

2. That first institution of marriage, that they may be one 
flesh, is by adultery dissolved, when the adulteress makes her- 
self one flesh with another man, and thereby dissolves the 
first bond of her marriage. 

8, The objection, that, if the bond be dissolved, and after- 
wards if the man or woman be reconciled, they must be 
married over again, 15 no necessary consequence, no more 
- than it is in a person baptized, who may break his covenant, 
and renounce his Baptism, and yet upon true repentance be 
received into God’s favour by virtue of the first covenant, 
without any new Baptism. Suppose a witch, who they say 
makes a compact with the devil to renounce her Baptism, 
should afterwards, by the grace of God, seriously and truly 
repent herself of the wickedness: I do not believe that any 


¥ [Vid. p. 495, note d.] 

2 {Origenis Comm. in Matth. xix.— 
Op., ed. Ben. Par. 1740, tom. iii. p. 
647.—75n δὲ παρὰ γεγραμμένα καὶ τίνες 
τῶν ἡγουμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐπέτρεψάν 
τινα, ὥστε ζῶντος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς γαμεῖσθαι 
γυναῖκα, κ. τ.λ. 

ἃ [Vid. S. Aug. de Conjugiis Adul- 
terinis, lib. ii. cap. v. (ὃ 6.)—Op., tom. 


vi. col. 407.—Unde, si vult dimittere 
adulteram, non ducat alteram, ne quod 
in illa culpat ipse committat.—Item, 
de Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, lib. i. 
cap. x. (δ 11.) col. 286.—Ita manet 
inter viventes quiddam conjugale, quod 
nec separatio, nec cum altero copulatio, 
possit auferre. | 


ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE, 501 


body would take upon him to baptize her again; and, if 
a Priest should renounce his Orders, and turn Turk, and yet 
afterwards repent him, and return into the Church, he need 
not be re-ordained a second time. The case will be the same 
in marriage. 

4. I said heretofore, that the Roman doctors allowed this 
dissolution of the bond, when the man and wife, even after 
the consummation of marriage, would transfer themselves 
into a friary or a nunnery; but, because it hath been since 
doubted, that no authority can be shewed for this particu- 
lar, I shall here shew it out of the old constitutions of the 
Church of England”: 

“ And, in the case of religion, that is the true understand- 
ing, that, to wit, either of them betaking themselves to reli- 
gion before carnal knowledge, the bond of the marriage be 
dissolved; ..... but, if both enter into religion and make 
solemn profession, then such marriage is dissolved, even as 
to the bond.” 

5. It hath also been said, that, if the bill pass, it will pass 
against the Church of England: which I confess I do not 
understand: for the Church of England is within the king- 
dom of England ; and, if the laws of this kingdom be for the 
bill, and have declared it by the assent of the king, lords, 
and commons, as, in the case of the Marquis of Northamp- 
ton, was heretofore declared in the time of King Edward 
VI., that by the laws of God the imnocent party was at 
liberty to marry again, certainly the spiritual lords, as well 
as the temporal, and commons, are bound to admit it; and I 
know not why they should be called the Church of England, 
that join with the council of Trent, and plead so much 
to uphold it, rather than others, that join with all the 
reformed Churches, and plead against that canon of the 
Church of Rome, which hath laid an anathema upon us, if 
we do not agree with them. 


b Prov. Will. Lindewode, sive Cons. 
Angl., fol. 94, ver. Nullatenus separen - 
tur. [ Vid. lib. iii. tit. iii, De Clericis 
Conjugatis, not. g. ad can. Richardi; 
ed. Oxon. 1679, p. 128.—Et in casu 
religionis iste est verus intellectus, ut 
scilicet eorum altero ad Religionem 





conyolante, ante carnalem copulam, 
solvatur vinculum matrimonii .... . 
Sed, si ambo ingrediantur Religionem, 
professione solenni emissa, tunc etiam 
quoad vinculum solvitur hujusmodi 
matrimonium, } 


502 ARGUMENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. 


As to the supposed inconveniences that will follow upon 
marrying again, 

1. More inconveniences will follow, if they be forbidden to 
marry again. 

2. The father would be in an uncertainty of the children, 
if he should retain the adulteress. 

3. There would be danger of poisoning or killing one 
another, if no second marriage were allowed. 

4. Where the parties should consent to new marriages 
for their own lusts, the magistrates have power to overrule 
such practices. 

5. If they be kept altogether by divorce from marrying, it 
would occasion the innocent party to sin. 





FORM OF PRAYER FOR THE FIRST WEDNESDAY 
OF EVERY MONTH DURING THE PLAGUE. 


{Found among the Durham MSS., in a volume entitled “ Bishop Cosin’s 
Letters, 1664, 1665,’’ at num. 67. | 


MORNING PRAYER. 


For He is the Lord our God : and we are the people of 
His pasture, and sheep of His hands. 

Let us repent and turn from our wickedness : and our 
sins shall be forgiven us. 

We acknowledge indeed that our punishments are less 
than our deserving : but yet of Thy mercy, O Lord, correct 
us to amendment, and plague us not to our destruction. 

But Thy hand is not shortened, that Thou canst not help: 
neither is Thy goodness abated, that Thou wilt not hear. 

For Thou art the only Lord, who woundest and dost heal 
again : Thou killest and revivest, bringest even to hell, and 
bringest back again. 

Thou savest our lives from destruction : and crownest us 
with mercy and loving kindness. 

They called upon Thee, and were holpen : they put their 
trust in Thee, and were not confounded. 

For many troubles are come about us : our sins have 
taken such hold upon us, that we are not able to look up. 

Hide not Thy face from us in time of trouble : incline 
Thine ear to us when we call: O hear us, and that mght 
soon. 

For we do not present our supplications before Thee, 
trusting in our own righteousness, but in Thy manifold and 
great mercies. 

So we [that] are Thy people and sheep of Thy pasture, 
shall give Thee thanks for ever, and will alway be shewing 
forth Thy praise from generation to generation. 

Psalms the 6th, the 32nd, the 38th, and 39th. 


5OA FORM OF PRAYER DURING THE PLAGUE. 


EVENING PRAYER. 


For He is the Lord our God : and we are the people of 
His pasture, and the sheep of His hands. 

Let us repent and turn from our wickedness : and our 
sins shall be forgiven us. 

We acknowledge indeed that our punishments are less 
than our deservings : but yet of Thy merey, O Lord, correct 
us to amendment, and plague us not to our destruction. 

But Thy hand is not shortened, that Thou canst not help : 
neither is Thy goodness [abated,] that Thou wilt not hear. 

For Thou art the only Lord, who woundest and dost heal 
again : Thou killest and revivest, brmging even to hell, and 
bringest back again. 

Thou savest our life from destruction : and crownest us 
with mercy and loving kindness. 

They called upon Thee, and were holpen : they put their 
trust in Thee, and were not confounded. 

For many troubles are come about us : our sins have 
taken such hold upon us, that we are not able to look up. 

Hide not Thy face from us in time of our trouble : in- 
cline Thine ears to us, when we call : O, hear us, and that 
night soon. 

For we do not present our supplications before Thee, 
trusting in our own righteousness ; but in Thy manifold and 
great mercies. 

So we, that are Thy people, and sheep of Thy pasture, 
shall give Thee thanks for ever : and will always be shewing 
forth Thy praise from generation to generation. 


Psalms 90th, the 91st, and the 130th. 





ARTICLES OF INQUIRY, 


CONCERNING 


MATTERS ECCLESIASTICAL, 


EXHIBITED 


TO THE MINISTERS, CHURCH WARDENS, AND SIDEMEN OF EVERY 


PARISH WITHIN THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM ; 
IN THE 


FIRST EPISCOPAL VISITATION OF THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, JOHN 
BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: 


IN THE SECOND YEAR OF HIS CONSECRATION, ANNO DOM. MDCLXII. 


LONDON, 
PRINTED BY T. GARTHWAIT, 
1662. 


THE OATH TO BE GIVEN UNTO ΤῊΝ CHURCHWARDENS AND 
SIDEMEN OF EVERY PARISH. 


“You shall swear to inquire with the best diligence that you may, and 
to make a true answer unto every article of this book now given you 
in charge, presenting every person of your parish that hath done any 
offence, or omitted any duty therein mentioned. And this you shall 
do without any favour, or hatred, or fear of displeasure : So help you 
God, and the contents of His holy Gospel.” 


ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY, 


EXHIBITED TO THE CHURCHWARDENS AND SIDEMEN OF 
EVERY PARISH IN THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM, ANNO 
MDCLXII. 


4 ΜΒ. ΘΒ 


CONCERNING THE FABRIC, REPAIRING, KEEPING CLEAN, AND FURNISHING OF 
CHURCHES AND CHAPELS. 


1. Is there in your parish a Church or Chapel with a tower 
or steeple adjoined to it, and a Chancel at the east, all well 
and fairly built, duly kept and maintained, for the honour of 
God, and for the performance of religious duties ? 

2. Are the roofs thereof well leaded or slated without ? 
well ceiled within? the windows well glazed? the walls well 
plastered? the tables of the ten Commandments and other 
sentences of Scripture well placed? the floors well paved ? 
the seats well framed? and all things so decently ordered, 
as may well beseem the house of God ? 

3. How many bells are there in the tower or steeple of 
your Church or Chapel? have any of them, that formerly 
belonged to it, or any lead of the roofs of the Church or 
Chancel, been embezzled and sold away? and, if any such 
thing hath been done, who did it ? and who consented to it? 
and what was the value of the thing so sold or embezzled ? 

4. Is there a Font of marble, or other stone, decently 
wrought and covered, set up at the lower part of your 
Church, for the administration of the Sacrament of Bap- 
tism? Is there a partition between your Church and your 
Chancel, a comely fair Table there, placed at the upper part 
of it, for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper? Are there two fair and large coverings for it, one 
of silk-stuff or fine cloth, another of fine linen, with a plate 


508 ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 


or paten and a cup or chalice of silver, and two fair flagons 
of pewter or purer metal, belonging to it? Have none of all 
these things been purloimed, destroyed, or made away, by 
any person whom you can name? and, if they have been 
taken away, are they again restored, or other such provided 
in their place? 

5. Have you im your Church, or in your Chancel, a con- 
venient seat erected for your Minister, wherein to read 
the daily Morning and Evening Service, a desk whereat 
to say the Litany in the midst of the Church, according to 
the injunctions set forth in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and 
a pulpit for sermons with a comely cloth before it? Are you 
provided of a Bible in the largest volume, and of the last 
approved translation, and in what year was it printed? Have 
you two books of Common Prayer set forth by public autho- 
rity, and are they both also of the largest volume, one for 
the Minister, and another for the Clerk, to use at the cele- 
bration of all divine offices? Have you likewise a book of 
the Sermons, or Homilies, that were set forth in the time of 
King Edward VI., and in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 
together with the works of Bishop Jewell im defence of the 
Church of England, which King James commanded to be 
had in all Churches, and a book of the Constitutions or 
Canons Ecclesiastical, the books or forms of Divine Service 
for the fifth of November, the thirtieth of January, and the 
twenty-ninth of May, and a table of marriages prohibited 
by the law of God ? 

6. Have you a large and decent Surplice (one or more) 
for the Minister to wear at all times of his public ministra- 
tion in the Church, and another for the Clerk, if he hath 
heretofore been accustomed to wear it, when he assisteth the 
Minister? Are not either of their Surplices now grown old 
and torn? and what are they at this time worth? or, if new 
have been lately bought, how much did they cost by the 
yard? 

7. Have you, in your vestry, a hood or tippet for the Minis- 
ter to wear over his Surplice, if he be a graduate? a book 
of parchment, wherein to register the christenings, marriages, 
and burials, of your parish? another book of paper, wherein 
to record the licences of strange Ministers, that are admitted 





ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 509 


at any time to preach in your Church or Chapel? and a 
third book, wherein to write down the accounts of the Church- 
wardens, and to keep an inventory of all things provided, 
and belonging to your Church? MHave you a strong chest, 
with locks and keys, wherein to keep all these books, and 
other furniture for Divine Services, in safe custody? And, 
lastly, have you a box, wherein to put and keep alms for the 
poor, and a bier with a black herse-cloth for the burial of 
the dead ? 


ΠΌΤΕ EH. 


CONCERNING THE CHURCHYARD, PARSONAGE-HOUSE, ALMSHOUSE, GLEBE 
AND TITHES. 


1. Is your Churchyard well and sufficiently fenced? Is it 
decently kept, without sufferance of any beasts to enter in 
and annoy it? Hath any person encroached upon it, or 
made a new door into it out of their own habitation or 
ground about it? 

2. Is the house of your Parson, Vicar, or Curate, well 
built and kept up (with all out-houses thereunto belonging) 
in good and sufficient repair ? 

3. Have you a true note or terrier of all the glebe lands, 
gardens, orchards, tenements, and portions of tithes, apper- 
taining to your parsonage or vicarage? Is it kept in your 
vestry, and a copy of it delivered into the Bishop’s registry ? 

4. Is there any alms-house, hospital, or free-school, in 
your parish? Who was the founder, or is now the patron 
thereof ? 


TITUL. III. 
CONCERNING MINISTERS, PREACHERS, AND LECTURERS. 


1. Is your Minister, Parson, or Vicar, a Deacon or a Priest, 
ordained by a Bishop according to the laws of the Church of 
England ? 


510 ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 


2. Was he, without any simoniacal compact, promise, or 
payment, freely presented, instituted, and inducted into his 
benefice ? and did he within two months after his induction 
publicly read in your Church upon some Sunday or Holiday, 
in the time of Divine Service, and in the audience of his 
parishioners, all the thirty-nine Articles of Religion set forth 
and established im the Church of England by authority ? 
And did he then profess and publish his assent unto them 
all, subscribing his name thereunto in the presence of the 
Churchwardens, and other persons of your parish, who can 
bear witness of the same? do you not know, or have you 
not heard, that, in his reading or pretending to read these 
thirty-nine Articles of Religion, he omitted or skipped over 
some one or more of them? what Article was it, or what 
part thereof, that he left unread ? 

3. Doth he use any other words or form, than what is 
prescribed in the book of Common Prayer, in the public 
reading of the daily Morning and Evening Service, and in 
the Litany, which is to be added to the Morning Service 
upon Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, weekly, and at all 
other times when it is appointed by the Bishop; as likewise 
at the reading of the Communion Service, and the administra- 
tion of the two Sacraments, (Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper,) 
at the celebration of matrimony, churching of women after 
child-birth, burying the dead, and pronouncing God’s com- 
mination against impenitent sinners? And doth he all these 
without omission, addition, or alteration of any of them, 
using all the rites and ceremonies appointed in that book ? 

4. Doth he always, at the reading or celebrating any 
Divine Office in your Church or Chapel, constantly wear 
the Surplice, and other his ecclesiastical habit according to 
his degree? And doth he never omit it ? 

5. Doth he diligently instruct the youth of your parish 
in their Catechism, and visit the sick, as he is directed for 
the performance of both those offices in the book of Common 
Prayer ? 

6. Doth he bid and observe the holidays and fasting days, 
as they occur from time to time in the whole year? 

7. Is he a graduate in either of the Universities of this 
realm, and to what degree hath he been there admitted? 





ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 511 


8. Hath he been licensed by the Bishop, or by one of 
those Universities, to preach? And doth he constantly 
preach in your Church or Chapel, or (when he is hindered 
by sickness, or some other urgent cause,) doth he procure a 
sermon to be preached by a discreet, able, and approved 
substitute, every Sunday, besides the anniversary days of 
Christ’s Nativity and His Passion, at the least? And, if 
there be no such sermon preached, doth he, his substitute, 
or Curate, read one of the Sermons or Homilies appointed by 
public authority for such several times and occasions? 

9. Doth he, or his Curate, observe the three Rogation days 
before the feast of our Lord’s Ascension, saying the Litany, 
the οἷ. and the civ. Psalm, with the Churchwardens and 
others that accompany him, in the perambulation of your 
parish? and, when the perambulation is ended, doth he go 
into the Church with them, and read unto them one of the 
Sermons set forth and appointed for that purpose ? 

10. Doth he or his substitute use any other form of 
prayer before his Sermon or Homily, but what he is directed 
and enjoined to do by the constitutions of the Church? 

11. Doth he preach unfeigned faith, and obedience to 
God’s holy Commandments, submission and loyalty to the 
king and his laws, together with true Christian piety and 
charity among the people? and hath he not at any time (to 
your own knowledge, or as you have been told by others that 
do know it,) preached any false, heretical, seditious, or schis- 
matical doctrine, in his sermons, whereby the people may be 
led into any sect or faction against the peace and unity of 


_ the Church ? 


12. Is there any lecture preached in your parish? Is he 
who preacheth it (one or more) allowed so to do by the 
Bishop? Doth he, before his lecture, read the Public Service 
of the Church appointed for that day by the book of Common 
Prayer? At the reading thereof doth he wear a Surplice? 
When he lectureth, doth he use the ecclesiastical habit ap- 
pointed for all Ministers of the Church? Doth he administer 
the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper twice in 
the year at least, according to the prescript form of the pub- 
lic liturgy? And, lastly, doth he, before the preaching of his 
lecture, constantly observe the form of prayer which is en- 


512 ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 


joined him in the fifty-fifth canon of the Heclesiastical Con- 
stitutions ? 

13. Doth your Minister endeavour to reclaim all popish 
recusants, and other sectaries, (if there be any such inhabit- 
ing within your parish,) to the unity, obedience, and true 
religion, established m the Church of England? Doth he 
prepare and present the youth of your parish to be confirmed 
by the Bishop? Doth he admit any of them to the Holy 
Communion, or to be contracted in marriage, or to be God- 
father or Godmother in the administration of Baptism, before 
they can give an account of their faith and religion according 
to the questions and answers contained in the Church Cate- 
chism? Hath he admitted any woman to her thanksgiving 
after child-birth, before she hath done her penance, if her 
child was born or begotten out of lawful matrimony? Doth 
he presume to marry any persons in private houses, or such 
as, being under the age of twenty-one years, have not the con- 
sent of their parents, or without the banns first published on 
three several Sundays or Holidays in your Church, or at any 
other hours than between 8 and 12 in the forenoon, unless 
he hath a licence or dispensation to the contrary ? 

14. Hath your Parson or Vicar any other ecclesiastical 
benefice, prebend, or dignity? Doth he reside upon his living 
among you, or how long in the year is he absent from it ? 
Hath he a Curate to assist him in his ministry, and what 
stipend doth he allow him? Is that Curate an able, learned, 
and discreet person, admitted by the Bishop to serve in your 
Church or Chapel? and doth he serve in any other Church 
but yours ? 

15. Is your Parson, Vicar, Curate, or Lecturer, a man 
studious of innocency and sanctity in his life? of a sober, 
chaste, unblameable, and religious conversation? Doth he 
refrain the company of ungodly and vicious persons, such 
especially as be excommunicated for their disobedience, or 
pravity, and looseness of life? Is he noted to be a frequenter 
of taverns or ale-houses? to be an ordinary gamester, or 
hunter, or a common swearer, or intemperate drinker? a 
riotous or disorderly person in any kind whatsoever? Doth 
he wear his hair of a moderate and comely length? Is his 
apparel grave and decent, in fashion and in colour such as is 


ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 513 


enjoined him by the Canons of the Church? Doth he not 
employ himself in any mechanical trade or servile labour, 
unbefitting his sacred office and ministry? And is there any 
other in your parish, who, having been heretofore ordained a 
Deacon or Minister, hath relinquished the exercise of his 
Holy Orders, and now, in the course of his life, beareth him- 
self as one of the Laity, and not as a Minister of God and 
the Church ? 

16. Doth your Minister or Curate wilfully refuse or delay 
the time to baptize any infant that is in danger of death? 
and, if the child be baptized in private, and doth afterward 
recover, is it brought into the Church, and the Baptism of it 
there certified to the congregation, according to the form 
prescribed in the book of Common Prayer, and the admin- 
istration of the Sacraments? Is there any child past his 
infancy, or other person of more years, through your Minis- 
ter’s default, yet remaining unbaptized among you? And 
doth he, in the administration of that Sacrament, admit 
any parent to be Godfather or Godmother to their own 
children ? 

17. Doth he, in the presence of your Churchwardens, 
write and record in your register-book the names of all per- 
sons baptized, married, and buried, within your parish from 
time to time, together with the names of their parents? and 
doth he subscribe his own, and the Churchwardens’ or 
Overseers’ names, to every page of that book, yearly trans- 
mitting the copy of those christenings, marriages, and 
burials, so subscribed, into the Bishop’s registry. 


EYEE. Dic 


CONCERNING THE PARISHIONERS. 


1. Is there in your parish any person, who is commonly 
known or reputed to be an heretic or schismatic? any papist, 
presbyterian, familist, anabaptist, mdependent, quaker, or 
other sectary, that refuses to come unto the public assem- 
blies, prayers, or services of the Church, or that makes pro- 


COSIN, Ἷ Ι, ] 


δ14. ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 


fession of any other religion, than what is established in the 
Church of England? and, if there be any such, what are 
their names? 

2. Is there any person in your parish, who by common 
fame, report, or vehement suspicion, hath committed adul- 
tery, fornication, or incest, or any receiver and harbourer 
of such incontinent lewd persons in their houses? Are there 
any common drunkards within your parish, any that be 
usual swearers, or blasphemers of God’s Name, or any that 
are noted to be railers, unclean and fiithy talkers, or any 
sowers of sedition, faction, and discord, amongst their neigh- 
bours ? 

3. Do any of your parish employ themselves upon the 
Sundays, or Holidays, in their bodily and ordinary labour ? 
or do they permit their servants so to do? Are any shops 
kept open, or wares sold? or do any vintners, mn-keepers, 
or other victuallers, and sellers of beer or ale, suffer any 
persons to tipple or game in their houses upon those days ? 

4. Doth every person inhabiting or sojourning within 
your parish duly resort unto your Church, or Chapel, upon 
every Sunday and Holiday appointed for Divine Service ? 
Do they then, and there, abide quietly, with reverence, 
order, and decency, during all the whole time of Common 
Prayer, preaching, or other service of God there used? And 
are there any among you, that come only to the preaching, 
and not to the Common Prayers of the Church ? 

5. Doth every person at his entrance into the Church 
reverently uncover his head, and so continue all the time of 
Divine Service and Sermon, until his departure thence? Do 
they all reverently kneel at the Prayers, and stand up when 
the Creed is said, and when the Gospel is read, making due 
reverence when the Name of our Lord Jesus is mentioned ? 
Do they joi with the Clerk of the Church in answering 
at the Psalms, Hymns, and other parts of the service, as 1s 
appointed for them ? 

6. Are there any in your parish, that refuse to send their 
infant children unto the Sacrament of Christian Baptism in 
your Church, there to be baptized publicly, unless in case of 
urgent necessity and danger, when the child may be bap- 
tized at home by your own lawful Minister, after the form 





ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 515 


and rites appointed in the Liturgy? Or do they send their 
children to be baptized in any other parishes, or after any 
other form, or by any other Minister abroad? Or do they 
keep them unbaptized any longer time, after they be born, 
than the Church alloweth in the rules prescribed for the 
administration of that Sacrament? And are there any in- 
fants or more aged children in your parish, that be yet un- 
baptized ? 

7. Doth every householder in your parish cause their 
children and servants duly to learn their Catechism, and 
to give an account thereof unto your Minister, as he shall 
require it of them, openly in the Church upon Sundays and 
Holidays, as in the book of Common Prayer is appointed ? 
And, when they are well instructed in that Catechism, are 
they sent or brought to the Bishop, at fit and convenient 
times, to be confirmed ? 

8. Is there any person in your parish, who, being sixteen 
years of age, and well instructed in religion, doth not fre- 
quently receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or at 
least three times in the year, of which Easter is always to be 
one? Do they leave their common seats, and draw near to 
the Communion Table, when they are to receive the Sacra- 
ment, all decently behaving themselves, and humbly kneel- 
ing upon their knees in honour of our blessed Saviour, whose 
precious Death and Passion is then set forth and remembered 
by the Church ? 

9. Doth any in your parish refuse to receive that holy 
Sacrament from the hands of your own Minister, or repair 
for it to other parishes and Ministers abroad? Or are there 
any strangers, not being of your parish, that forsake their 
own Churches, and usually repair to yours for it ? 

10. Have you any among you, that be denounced or 
declared excommunicate for any disobedience or crime com- 
mitted by them? How long have they been so excom- 
municated? And do any others of your parish keep so- 
ciety with them, before they be reconciled to God and the 
Church ? 

11. Are there any living in your parish, who have been 
unlawfully married, contrary to the laws of God? or any, 
that being lawfully separated, and divorced, have been mar- 

L12 


516 ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 


ried again, the former husband or wife still lving? or 
any, that, being lawfully married, and not separated or di- 
vorced by course of law, do yet live asunder, and cohabit 
not together? . 

12. Are there any married women in your parish, who 
refuse, after their safe delivery from the peril of child-birth, 
to come and make their public thanksgiving to God m your 
Church, as they are required to do by the book of Common 
Prayer? And, when they come so to do, do they come 
decently veiled, and make their offerings according to cus- 
tom ? 

13. Are there any belonging to your parish, who refuse 
to pay their duty for Easter offerings to your Minister? 
or any that refuse to contribute, and pay the rate assessed 
upon them, for the repair of your Church or Chapel, and 
for the providing of such books, furniture, and ornaments, 
as be requisite for the performance of all Divine Offices 
there ? 

14. Do any refuse to bury their dead according to the 
rites of the Church of England? And are there any wills or 
testaments of persons dead in your parish, that be yet un- 
proved before lawful authority? or any goods administered 
without a due grant from the ordinary? Did any dying in 
your parish, or elsewhere, leave any legacy to your Church 
or Chapel, or to the use of poor and needy persons among 
you, or to any other pious and charitable purposes? What 
were those legacies, and how have they been bestowed ? 

15. Is there any hospital, almshouse, or free-school, 
founded in your parish? And is the same well governed 
and used, according to the foundation and ordinances thereof? 

16. Do you know, or have you heard, of any patron or 
other person in your parish, having the presentation or gift 
of any ecclesiastical benefice, who hath made gain thereof by 
presenting a Clerk or Minister to it upon any bargain, either 
for money, or pension, or lease, reserve of tithes or glebe, or 
any part thereof, or upon other simoniacal compact whatso- 
ever ? 

17. Is there no strife and contention among any of your 
parish for their pews or seats in your Church? And whether 
have they erected any pews in your Chancel, or elsewhere in 





ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 517 


the body of your Church or Chapel, without leave and 
licence from the ordinary ? 

18. Know you any person or persons, that have presumed 
to brawl, fight, or strike one another, in your Church, or in 
your Churchyard? And, if any such be, what are their 
names ? 


TITUD,. Ὑ: 


CONCERNING PARISH CLERKS AND SEXTONS. 


1. Have you, belonging to your Church or Chapelry, a 
parish Clerk aged twenty-one years at the least? Is he of 
honest life and conversation? and sufficient or able to per- 
form his duty in reading, writing, and singing? Is he chosen 
by your Minister, and doth he duly attend him in all divine 
services at the Church? Doth he wear a gown, when he so 
attendeth, and a surplice over it, if heretofore the custom 
hath been such among you? Are his wages duly paid unto 
him, or who withholdeth the same from him? 

2. Doth he, or your sexton, (if there be any such ap- 
pointed in your parish,) diligently look to the doors of your 
Church, that they be locked and opened at due time? And 
doth he keep your Church or Chapel clean from noisome 
dust, cobwebs, litter, straw, or any other annoyance? Doth 
he toll or ring the bells at the due accustomed hours be- 
fore the beginning of divine service, morning and evening, 
that the people may be warned to come unto the Church? 
And, when any person is passing out of this life, doth 
he, upon notice given him thereof, go and toll a bell, as 
hath been accustomed, that the neighbours may thereby be 
warned to recommend the dying person to the grace and 
favour of God? 


518 ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 


ΤΕ 


CONCERNING CURATES, SCHOOLMASTERS, PHYSICIANS, CHIRURGEONS, 
AND MIDWIVES. 


1, Is there any Curate or Minister employed under the 
Parson or Vicar of your parish? Is he admitted and licensed 
to serve in that office by the Bishop of the diocese? Doth 
he demean himself soberly, gravely, and religiously, in his 
place? Doth he instruct the youth of your parish in the 
Catechism appointed them? Is he diligent in visiting sick 
persons, examining them in their Christian Faith, exhorting 
them to works of charity, if they be able to do them, to 
make restitution where they have done any wrong, to remit 
all injuries that they have received, and to ask forgiveness 
of God, and all others whom they have offended ? 

2. Doth any man in your parish practise physic, or chi- 
rurgery, or any woman the office of a midwife, without ap- 
probation and lawful licence of the ordinary ? 

3. Doth any man keep a public or private school in your 
parish, but such as be allowed thereunto by the Bishop or 
his Chancellor? Doth he teach his scholars the Catechism 
of Religion set forth by authority ? Doth he cause them upon 
Sundays and Holidays orderly to repair to your Church or 
Chapel, and see that they behave themselves there quietly 
and humbly during the time of divine service and sermon ? 


TITUL, VIL 


CONCERNING CHURCHWARDENS AND SIDEMEN. 


1, Are the Churchwardens of your parish yearly and 
duly chosen by the joint consent of your Minister and 
parishioners, or one of them by your Minister, and the 
other by the parishioners ? 

2. Have the former and last Churchwardens given up 
their due accounts to the parish, and delivered up to the 





ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 519 


succeeding Churchwardens the moneys remaining in their 
hands, together with all other things belonging to your 
Church or Chapel, by bill indented? 

3. Do you, the Churchwardens and Sidemen, take dili- 
gent care, and see who of your parishioners be absent from 
the divine service, and sermon in your Church or Chapel 
upon Sundays and Holidays? And, if you find any to have 
absented themselves without a sufficient cause, do you, by 
warrant from some of the justices of peace, levy of them 
(by way of distress upon their goods) the sum of twelve 
pence for every such day of their absence, according to the 
Act of Parliament in that case provided? And do you dis- 
tribute the several sums so levied among the poor of your 
parish, according to the law? 

4. Do you note them that come late to Church, after 
divine service is begun, or depart before it is ended? Do 
you suffer none to stand idle, or talk together, in the 
Church porch, during the time of prayers, preaching, or 
other sacred offices ? 

5. Do you suffer no misbehaviour or disorder to be 
done by men, women, or servants, or children, in your 
Church or Chapel? Are you careful, that none of them sit, 
lean, or lay their hats, upon the Communion Table? Do 
you permit no minstrels, no morris-dancers, no dogs, hawks, 
or hounds, to be brought or come into your Church, but 
set your Sexton to keep them out, that the Congregation, 
and the Minister performing divine service, or preaching his 
sermon, may not be disturbed by them ? 

6. Do you, against the time of every Holy Communion 
appointed in your Church or Chapel, provide a sufficient 
quantity of fine white bread, and of good wine, according 
to the advice and direction given you by your Minister, 
for the number of Communicants ? 

7. Do you cause all Preachers (coming from other places 
to make sermons in your Church or Chapel) to subscribe 
their names, the same day they preach, in a book provided 
for that purpose ? 

8. Have you (the Churchwardens and Sidemen now 
sworn to give in a true answer unto all these articles of 
enquiry in all their several titles) had a sufficient time to 


520 ARTICLES OF VISITATION AND INQUIRY. 


draw up your presentments, and therein consulted or en- 
treated your Minister for his faithful assistance ? 

For know you assuredly, that, as the true discharging 
of your office is the chief means whereby public disorders, 
sins, and offences in your parish, may be reformed and 
punished, so, if you wilfully refuse to present such crimes 
and faults, as either you know to have been committed, or 
otherwise have heard of them by public fame,—that, in such 
cases, the Bishop and his officers are to proceed against you 
in their ecclesiastical courts, as in cases of wilful omission 
and perjury. 


Jou. DUNELM. 





3 
ἢ 
Η 
Ἢ 
‘| 
᾿ 


ULTIMUM TESTAMENTUM JOANNIS ΟΟΞΙΝΙ, 
EPISCOPI DUNELMENSIS, ITA INCIPIT*. 


ADJUTORIUM NOSTRUM IN NOMINE DOMINI, QUI FECIT 
CGLUM ET TERRAM. 


In nomine et honore ejusdem Domini Dei nostri, Patris, et 
Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, summe ac individue Trinitatis. 
Amen. 


QuvonrAm statutum est omnibus semel mori, et corpus 
uniuscujusque dissolutum iri, tempus vero dissolutionis mez 
cum incertum sit, de qui tamen quasi in propinguo esset, 
assidui animi meditatione sollicitus, et frequenti corporis 
infirmitate pulsatus, subinde cogito: ego Johannes Cosinus, 
humilis Ecclesize Dei administer, et modo, permissione Altis- 
simi, Hpiscopus Dunelmensis, non ponens spem meam in 
presenti hac vita, sed ad alteram (que futura est) in ceelis 
eternam, ex divina tandem misericordid adipiscendam sem- 
per anhelans, et humiliter orans pro salute anime mez, ut 
per merita Jesu Christi, Filii Dei vivi, et Redemptoris ac 
Mediatoris nostri unici, omnia mea mihi remittantur delicta, 
hoc testamentum, continens ultimam voluntatem meam, sand 
mente et puro corde condo, ordino, et facio, in hac forma 
que sequitur. 

Ante omnia, Domino nostro Deo Omnipotenti gratias ago 
quas possum maximas, quod me ex fidelibus et bonis paren- 
tibus in hance vitam nasci, atque in Ecclesid Sua, per sanctum 
Baptismi lavacrum ab Ipso institutum, ad vitam eternam 
renasci, voluerit, meque a juventute mea in doctrind sana 
erudiverit, et sanctorum suorum participem effecerit, fidemque 
non fictam vel mortuam, sed veram et vivam in animo meo 
impresserit, una cum adjuncta spe firma fore posthae ut per- 
ducar ad vitam sempiternam. Que quidem Fides in eo con- 
sistit, ut adoremus et veneremur Deum, in Eumque credamus, 
et in quem misit Filiam Ejus dilectissimum, Verbum eternum 

° (Fidei hane novissimam Cosini finem, scriptore ἢ. Thoma Smitho, 


confessionem publici fecit juris Basi- — edita est.] 
rius. Denuo autem sub Vite. Cosini 


Jude 


vers. 3. 


522 TESTAMENTUM JOANNIS COSINI. 


ante secula genitum, Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, 
qui propter nos nostramque salutem, ex beatissimai Virgine 
Maria, superveniente in eam Spiritu Sancto, carnem in 
seeculo sumpsit, et homo factus est; deinde natus, passus, 
crucifixus, mortuus ac sepultus, et, postquam ad inferos de- 
scendisset, ex sepulchro Suo resurrexit, et, captivam ducens 
captivitatem, adscendit in ccelos, ubi ad dexteram Dei Patris 
sedet, et.regnat in eternum: inde, vero, Spiritum Sanctum 
(im quem pariter nobis credendum est) misit, a Patre Filio- 
que procedentem, per quem largissime dona distribuit homi- 
nibus, et Ecclesiam Suam Catholicam in Communione Sanc- 
torum, in divinis Sacramentis, in vera Fide, in doctrina sana 
ac moribus Christianis, instituit; una cum remissione pecca- 
torum pils omnibus, et dignos in eadem Ecclesid poenitentiz 
fructus proferentibus, impertiendi: quibus etiam, quum in 
supremo szeculi die de ceelis rediturus, ut mortuos resuscitet, 
et omnes judicet, collaturus est zeternam beatitudinem ; reli- 
quis vero infidelibus, aut qui secundum carnem vixerint, et 
converti sive peenitentiam agere nolentibus, zeternum suppli- 
cium irrogaturus. In hac Fide, que totius Sacre Scripture 
summa est, et absolutissimum compendium, sauctis semel 
tradita, et ab apostolis eorumque successoribus propagata, 
atque ad nos usque derivata, vivere me profiteor, et, ut in δὰ 
ad ultimum vite spiritum constanter ac sine heesitatione per- 
severem ct moriar, assiduis quantum possum precibus a Deo 
contendo; unitatem interea colens, et servans vinculum pacis 
ac caritatis, cum omnibus ubique Christianis, qui inter tanta 
Ecclesize mala, distractiones, et calamitates, (quibus equidem 
non possum non illachrymari,) hance Fidem integre admit- 
tunt, nullamque ejus partem in dubium vocant. Spero 
etiam, (que est Dei, Christique, Θεανθρώπου, Servatoris 
nostri, benignitas,) omnes eos, qui hee a Deo revelante tra- 
dita simplicitur nobiscum crediderint, et pie vixerint, in 
magno illo Die Domini salvos fore, etiamsi singulorum ratio- 
nem reddere, vel modum exponere, vel quzestiones circa ea 
exortas solvere, vel, dum forte satagunt, hallucinationes ali- 
quot effugere, et penitus ab errore immunes esse, nequiverint. 

Sed quascunque olim hereses et queecunque etiam schis- 
mata, quibuscunque tandem nominibus appellentur, prisca et 
universalis sive Catholica Christi Ecclesia unanimi consensu 


TESTAMENTUM JOANNIS COSINI. 523 


rejecit et condemnavit, ego pariter condemno et rejicio ; 
una cum omnibus earundem heresium fautoribus hodiernis, 
sectariis, et fanaticis, qui spiritu malo acti mentiuntur sese 
Spiritu Dei afflari. Horum omnium, inquam, heereses, et 
schismata, ego quoque Ecclesiz nostra Anglicanz, imo Ca- 
tholice, symbolis, synodis, et confessionibus addictissimus, 
pariter improbo, constanterque rejicio, atque repudio. In 
quorum numero pono non tantum segreges anabaptistas, et 
eorum sequaces (proh dolor!) nimium multos, sed etiam 
novos nostrates independentes et presbyterianos, genus ho- 
minum malitiz, mobedientiz, et seditionis spiritu abreptum, 
qui, inaudité a seculis ἀπ δοιὰ et perfidid, tanta nuper perpe- 
trarunt facinora, in contemptum et opprobrium omnis religi- 
onis et Fidei Christiane, quanta quidem non sine horrore 
dici aut commemorari queant. Quinetiam a corruptelis et 
ineptis nuperque natis sive papisticis (quas vocant) supersti- 
tionibus, doctrinis, et assumentis novis, in avitam ac primz- 
vam laudatissime olim tam orthodoxee et Catholicee Kcclesiz 
religionem ac Fidem, jamdudum contra Sacram Scripturam 
veterumque Patrum regulas ac mores, introductis, me prorsus 
jam alienum esse, atque adeo a juventute mea semper fuisse, 
sancte et animitus adsevero. 

Ubicunque vero terrarum Ecclesiz, Christiano nomine 
censee, veram, priscam, et Catholicam religionem Fidemque 
profitentur, et’ Deum, Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, 
uno ore et mente invocant ac colunt, eis, si me uspiam actu 
jam nunc jungi prohibet vel distantia regionum, vel dissidia 
hominum, vel aliud quodcunque obstaculum, semper tamen 
- animo, mente, et affectu, conjungor ac coalesco ; id quod de 
protestantibus preesertim, et bene reformatis Ecclesiis, intel- 
ligi volo: fundamentis enim salvis, diversitatem, ut opi- 
nionum, ita quoque rituum, circa res juxta adnatas et minus 
necessarias, nec universali veteris Ecclesiz praxi repugnantes 
in aliis Ecclesiis (quibus nobis presideudum non est) amice, 
placide, et pacifice, ferre possumus, atque adeo perferre debe- 
mus. Eis vero omnibus, qui male consulti quoquo modo me 
iniquis calumniis insectati sunt, vel adhuc insectari non desi- 
nunt, ego quidem ignosco, et Deum serio precor, ut Ipse quo- 
que ignoscere et meliorem eis mentem inspirare velit. Ope- 
ram interim et mihi, et aliis omnibus fratribus, prasertim 


a ut,” 
ed. Basir. ] 


524 TESTAMENTUM JOANNIS COSINI: 


Episcopis, et Ministris Ecclesize Dei, quantum ex Illius gratia 
possumus, dandum et conferendam esse existimo, ut tandem 
sopiantur, vel saltem minuantur, religionis dissidia, atque ut 
‘pacem sectemur cum omnibus, et sanctimoniam.’? Quod ut 
fiat quam ocyssime, faxit Deus ‘ pacis Auctor et Amator con- 
cordiz.’ Cujus immensam misericordiam oro et obtestor, ut 
me in peceatis et iniquitatibus conceptum ab omni humane 
infirmitatis labe et corrupteli repurget, dignumque ex in- 
digno per magnam clementiam Suam faciat, mihique passio- 
nem et immensa merita dilectissimi Sui Filn Domini nostri, 
Jesu Christi, ad delictorum meorum omnium expiationem 
applicet: ut, quum novissima vite hora non improvisa vene- 
rit, ab Angelis Suis in sinum Abrahe raptus, et in societate 
sanctorum et electorum Suorum collocatus, eterna’ felicitate 
perfruar. 


Hee preefatus, que ad religionem et anime mez statum ac 
salutem spectant, queeque Latino sermone a me dictata 
atque exarata sunt, reliqua, que ad sepulturam corporis 
et bonorum meorum temporalium dispositionem attinent, 
sermone patrio perscribi faciam, ac perorabo. 


Vid. I will, &c. 








THE LAST WILL OF J. COSIN, LORD BISHOP 
OF DURHAM?., 


OUR HELP IS IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, WHO MADE 
HEAVEN AND EARTH. 


In the Name and honour of the same Lord our God, the Father, 
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the most high and undivided 
Trinity. 

ForasMUCcH as it is appointed for all men once to die, and that 
every man’s body shall be dissolved, but the time of my dissolution 
is uncertain; of which notwithstanding, as if it were nigh at hand, 
being mindful in my daily meditations, and shaken with the frequent 
infirmities of my body, I ever and anon think thereof : 

I, John Cosin, an humble minister in the Church of God, and by 
the permission of the most High now Bishop of Durham, not putting 
my hope in this present life, but ever aspiring to that other (which is 
to come) eternal in the heavens, and which by the mercy of God ere 
long I hope to obtain, and humbly praying, for the salvation of my 
own soul, that through the merits of Jesus Christ, the Son of the 
living God, our only Redeemer and Mediator, all mine offences be 
forgiven me, being of a sound mind, out of a sincere heart, do make, 
ordain, and constitute this testament, containing my last will, in this 

form as followeth. 
First of all, I heartily thank our Lord God Almighty, that He hath 
vouchsafed me to be born in this life of faithful and virtuous parents; 
and that it hath pleased Him that I should be regenerate (and born 
anew in His Church) unto life eternal by the holy laver of Baptism, 
which He hath instituted; and that He hath instructed me from my 
youth in sound doctrine, and hath made me partaker of His saints ; 
that He hath imprinted in my mind a faith not feigned nor dead, but 
true and living, together with a firm confidence, that hereafter I shall 
be brought unto eternal life; which Faith doubtless consists in this :— 
that we adore and worship one God, and believe in Him, and in Him 


P (This translation of the foregoing given, in Basire’s Dead Man’s Real 
Confession of Faith follows it, as here Speech, Append., p. 119, ἃς.) 


Jude, 
verse 3. 


? Tom. ] 


τ 


526 THE LAST WILL OF J. COSIN, 


whom He hath sent, His most beloved Son, the Eternal Word, be- 
gotten before all ages, Jesus Christ our Lord: Who for us and for 
our salvation took flesh of the most blessed Virgin Mary (the Holy 
Ghost overshading her) in this life, and was made man, afterward 
was born, suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, and, after He had 
descended into hell, rose again from His grave, and, leading captivity 
captive, ascended into heaven, where, sitting at the right hand of 
God, He reigneth for ever; but sent from thence the Holy Ghost (in 
Whom we ought equally to believe) proceeding from the Father and 
the Son, by Whom He most bountifully gave gifts unto men, and 
founded His Catholic Church in the communion of saints, in the 
divine Sacraments, in true Faith, sound doctrine, and Christian man- 
ners, together with the remission of sins, to be conferred on all the 
godly, and that in the same Church bring forth fruits meet for re- 
pentance ; to whom also, when in the last day of the world He shall 
come from heaven to raise the dead and judge all, He will give eter- 
nal happiness; but to the rest, that are infidels, or that have lived 
according to the flesh, and would not repent or be converted, He 
will inflict eternal punishment. In this Faith, which is the summary 
and most absolute abridgement of all the Holy Scripture, ‘ once 
delivered to the saints,’ and which the Apostles and their successors 
have spread abroad and derived down even to us, I profess myself to 
live, and that I may persevere in it constantly without doubting, unto 
my last breath, is my daily prayer; in the meantime seeking after 
unity by preserving the bond of peace and love with all Christians 
everywhere, who, among the great evils, distractions, and calamities 
of the Church, (which truly I cannot but heartily bewail,) entirely 
receive this Faith, and call no one part of it in question. I hope also, 
through the goodness of God, and Christ, God and man, our Saviour, 
that all they, that have together with us sincerely believed these things 
that are revealed and delivered from God, and have lived a godly 
life, shall be saved in the great Day of the Lord; (who!) although 
they are not able to give an account, or explain the manner of 
every of them, nor resolve the questions raised about them, and 
though perhaps, when they endeavour it, they cannot avoid some 
mistakes, and be altogether free from error. 

But whatsoever heresies or schisms heretofore, by what names 
soever they be called, the ancient Catholic and universal Church of 
Christ with an unanimous consent hath rejected and condemned, I 
do in like manner condemn and reject; together with all the modern 
fautors of the same heresies, sectaries and fanatics, who, being 
carried on with an evil spirit, do falsely give out they are inspired of 
God :—the heresies and schisms, I say, of all these, I also, as most 


LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM. 527. 


addicted to the symbols, synods, and confessions of the Church of 
England, or rather the Catholic Church, do constantly renounce, 
condemn, and reject. Among whom I rank not only the separatists, 
the anabaptists, and their followers, (alas) too too many, but also the 
new independents and presbyterians of our country, a kind of men 
hurried away with the spirit of malice, disobedience, and sedition, who 
by a disloyal attempt (the like whereof was never heard since the 
world began) have of late committed so many great and execrable 
crimes, to the contempt and despite of religion and the Christian 
Faith: which, how great they were, without horror cannot be spoken 
or mentioned. 

Moreover I do profess, with holy asseveration and from my very 
heart, that I am now, and have ever been from my youth, altogether 
free and averse from the corruptions and impertinent new-fangled or 
papistical (so commonly called) superstitions and doctrines, and new 
superadditions to the ancient and primitive religion and Faith of the 
most commended, so orthodox, and Catholic Church, long since 
introduced, contrary to the Holy Scripture and the rules and cus- 
toms of the ancient Fathers. 

But in what part of the world soever any Churches are extant, 
bearing the name of Christ, and professing the true Catholic Faith and 
religion, worshipping and calling upon God, the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost, with one heart and voice, if any where I be now 
hindered actually to be joined with them, either by distance of coun- 
tries, or variance amongst men, or by any other let whatsoever, 
yet always in my mind and affection I join and unite with them ; 
which I desire to be chiefly understood of protestants, and the best 
reformed Churches: for, where the foundations are safe, we may 
allow, and therefore most friendly, quietly, and peaceably suffer, in 
those Churches where we have not authority, a diversity, as of opinion, 
_ so of ceremonies, about things which do but adhere to the founda- 
tions, and are neither necessary or repugnant to the practice of the 
universal Church. As for all them, who through evil counsel have 
any way inveighed against, or calumniated me, and even yet do not 
forbear their invectives, I freely pardon them, and earnestly pray to 
God, that He also would be pleased to forgive them, and inspire them 
with a better mind. In the meanwhile I take it to be my duty, 
and of all my brethren, especially the Bishops and Ministers of 
the Church of God, to do our utmost endeavours, according to the 
measure of grace which is given to every one of us, that at last an 
end may be put to the differences of religion, or at least that they 
may be lessened, and that we may ‘follow peace with all men, and 
holiness ;’ which, that it may be accomplished very speedily, God 


678η08 


528 THE LAST WILL OF J. COSIN. 

‘the Author of peace and concord’ grant: whose infinite mercy I 
humbly beseech, that He would cleanse me, who was conceived in sin 
and iniquity, from every spot and corruption of human frailty; and that 
through His great clemency He would make me, who am unworthy, 
to become worthy, and that He would apply to me the passion and 
infinite merits of His most beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, to the 
expiating of all mine offences; that at the last hour of my life, which 
I daily look for, I may be carried by His holy Angels into Abraham’s 
bosom, and, being placed in the fellowship of His saints and elect, 
may fully enjoy eternal felicity. 

Having now declared what belongs to my religion, and the 
state and salvation of my soul, which I have now delivered here in 
Latin, the rest, that belongs to my burial, and the disposal of my 
temporal estate, I shall cause to be written in my native language, 
and so conclude. 


Durham, Jan. 18, 1672. 


Vera copia, examinata per me, 
Wituiam Sraaa, Not. Publicum. 





BX 5035 .L5 C6 v.4 SMC 
COSIN, JOHN, 1594-1672. 
WORKS; —— 

AKL-6592 (ΑΒ) 





taint 


pa ΉΝΝ 
LA 7 


δ ἐστ ory 
ΠΝ 


aye 

tyes 
ee 

tpt yet 


Δ ΜΕΝ 
Τα a es 


Ct deals 


Ys oy 
ἢ